"No abuse of power has so tarnished the corporate image or shown the need for government legislation as the numerous public revelations of wholesale political and foreign bribery that came to light during the 1970s. These revelations are one of the most sordid chapters in American corporate history. Investigations revealed widespread illegal corporate political contributions and extensive bribery of foreign government officials. When the bribes were large, they significantly distorted the corporation's actual financial picture, thus misleading company stockholders as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the . When U.S. corporations bribe officials of developing countries, they may help to undermine that country's political stability and in some cases contribute to the spread of anti-American feeling. A particularly serious situation develops when pharmaceutical corporations bribe health officials in other countries to obtain permission to sell dangerous drug products."

"We ought, as far as we can by law, to support the government of all societies and corporations, especially this of the city of London; and if the mayor and aldermen should not have power to punish offenders in a summary way, then farewell the government of the city."

"Corporations cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicate, for they have no souls."

"[T]he relationship between rape laws, democratic theories of consent, and patriarchy has been a matter of concern to feminist political theorists for some time. These feminists have exposed the 'double speak' of social contract consent theory … [T]hey have detailed the ways in which the emphasis on consent relies on a masculine concept of the self as an autonomous, independent being. They have examined the ways in which this concept of self runs counter women's experiences of the self as a relational being with responsibility to/for others … [I]t prompts us to argue for the rule of consent in the context of a theory of justice where vulnerability rather than autonomy defines the integrity of the political subject.” **"

"The situation the Lord Mayor holds is the first officer of the first city in the world in point of commerce and riches, and everything that can constitute the magnificence of a city. He is a judicial officer, and a municipal officer too, and from these combined characters there are duties incumbent upon him, which by all the ties that can bind a man to the discharge of duty, he is bound to discharge. It stands at the head of his duties, next after protecting the religion which binds us to God, to govern that civil policy which binds government together, and prevents us from being a state of anarchy and confusion."

"Cities are immortal."

"That consent has almost nothing to do with choice and everything to do with an unabashedly authoritarian understanding of political space in which rights are assumed to be waived can be seen in the actual outcome of the case in which Scarry conteztualizes her analysis. As Paul A. Lombardo has observed, “it is rarely clear in most discussions of the Cardozo opinion that Mary Schloendorff lost her case. That result is not only startling because of the way Cardozo ignored the absence of consent for dangerous and unwanted surgery, but also for its extraordinary deference to charitable immunity of hospitals, employing questionable arguments and contorted interpretations of the facts for each conclusion that would allow the case to be dismissed. The very Court that Cardozo sat on-New York's Court of Appeals-criticized the reasoning on charitable immunity in the Schloendorff case as 'logically weak' only ten years after it was decided, and it was completely overruled in 1957 when the shield of non-profit status was discarded in new York as “out of tune with life about us.' Yet we still celebrate the case as a salute to patient autonomy.” Lombardo continues by pointing out that the specific unwanted surgery performed on Mary Schloendorff was a hysterectomy to rid her of a “phantom tumor.” Lombardo 2005, 792. John T. Parry had addressed this paradox-the extent to which contemporary rights are assumed to be enforced only by the act of waiving the-as well, noting in his analysis of the 2002 case USA v. Drayton: Justice Kennedy closed with the following comments on citizenship, police conduct, and the rule of law: 'In a society based on law, the concept of agreement and consent should be given a weight and dignity of its own. Police officers act in full accord with the law when they ask citizens for consent."

"[T]o complain in public of inequality within the private contradicts the liberal definition of the private … [I]njuries arise through violation of the private sphere, not within and by and because of it. In private, consent tends to be presumed. Showing coercion is supposed to void this presumption. But the problem is getting anything private to be perceived as coercion … [W]hy a person would “allow” force in private (the “why doesn't she leave” question raised to battered women) is a question given its insult by the social meaning of the private sphere as a sphere of choice.”"

"Each of these theorists, in other words, links the failure of neutral or equal citizenship to the creation of the private sphere, to the placement of women into this sphere, and to the indeed dangerous way in which women's bodies personify it. Consent-a public, political act-becomes meaningless in such a frameowrk. Indeed, as MacKinnon argues with reference to rape law, consent is simply assumed in the private, that “arena of choice;” it is a metaphysical quality rather than a political act. Women carry the private around with them. And it is a result of their empathatically private nature that consent theory cannot serve them as citizens in the end. My purpose over the next few pages will be to challenge this analysis. More specifically, I will try to demonstrate that to the extent that sexual legislation-and more basically, sexual identity-became central to political identity over the first few decades of the twentieth century, women, sexualized, increasingly became actors within the rhetorical public, rather than within the rhetorical private. Indeed, rape and adultery law trendered women essential, prototypical, biopolitical subjects, their bodies representative of a new, relentless concept of the political. Moreover, I will argue that it was the thetoric of consent in particular that transformed women citizens in this way. Far from meaningless or irrelevant, consent instead served as a foundation for an interwar reinterpretation of both sexual and political identity. The paradox of both the biologically passive, politically active consenting individual"

"One major theme that runs throughout Bergelson's article is this tension between the ability to consent, which “is recognized in moral philosophy as a central manifestation of personhood and individual autonomy,” and the act of consent, which is “a waiver of rights.”"

"The Court are bound to consider all the circumstances of the case, before they disturb the peace and quiet of any corporation."

"By the early twentieth century, this articulation of women's bodies as biopolitical space had become far more pronounced-expressed throughout the 1920s and 1930s in particular in a language of consent. The talk of contracts, and especially the reinterpretation of the medieval private contract as a nineteenth century social contract, had led above all to an interwar fascination on the part of jurists with the biologically defined citizen and how consent theory specifically might regulate this citizen's sexuality. Italian fascist legislators, for example, began to imagine rape as both a crime against public morality and a crime against something called “sexual liberty,” the latter operating as a subset of the former. What exactly was meant by “sexual liberty” and why fascist legislators found it meaningful will be the questions that drive this section. I will indeed suggest over the next few pages that “sexual liberty” was a right that could be possessed only by biopolitically defined citizens, and that the consent on which this right was founded was likewise a biopolitical one-that paradoxically, as Vera Bergelson puts it, “valid consent eliminate[d] [the possibility of a] violation of rights.” I will therefore also suggest that consent played the same role in interwar sexual legislation that it had in interwar reproductive legislation. First and foremost a means of transforming women's bodies into space, it had little or nothing to do with “choice” or “freedom” per se, and placed women, not men, at the center of the public sphere."

"As I argued in the last chapter, Scarry's notion that consent as a political concept is meaningful only given a passive of threatened body leads likewise to the notion that the liberal citizen's political autonomy, his or her ability to consent or to invoke political power, is inversely proportional to his or her bodily or biological autonomy. It is important to reiterate, in fact, that Scarry's reading of consent theory brings us directly to a spatial rather than a behavioral unerstanding of political activity. If the ideal, politically active, consenting citizen is a physically incapacitated or immobile one, consent necessarily has to do with boundaries rather than behavior. I examined the reproductive implications of this reading in the last chapter. What I would like to do now is to discuss its implications in terms of sexual legislation-to ask especially what happens when consent describes sexual and political space, and when the act of consent is in and of itself a waiver of rights."

"That corporations are the creatures of the Crown must be universally admitted."

"Usually assault is not consented to in law; either it cannot be consented to, or consensual assault remains assault. Yet sexual assault consented to is intercourse, no matter how much force was used."

"A corporation can have no legal existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty by which it is created."

"Bergelson likewise discusses the role played by consent in the transformation of private contracts into public contracts in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. She notes that whereas in the early modern period, consent was a catch all defense in penal legislation, “changes in the power of an individual to conenet to personal harm came in the seventeenth century. They were a natural consequence of the monopolization of the system of punishment by the state. While in the early ages of criminal justice the victim was the central figure in the prosecution and settlement of any non-public offense,in the normative and centralized juridical structure the victim became almost entirely excluded from the criminal process.” She continuied by noting that the right to consent was thus constrained, as the victims of crime became abstract concepts such as “public peace” or sovereingty."

"If a client be present in Court, and stand by and see his solicitor enter into terms of an agreement, and makes no objection whatever to it, he is not at liberty afterwards to repudiate it."

"In addition to this immediate drowning out of noncorporate voices, there may be deleterious effects that follow soon thereafter. Corporate ‘domination’ of electioneering can generate the impression that corporations dominate our democracy. When citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy. A Government captured by corporate interests, they may come to believe, will be neither responsive to their needs nor willing to give their views a fair hearing. The predictable result is cynicism and disenchantment: an increased perception that large spenders ‘call the tune’ and a reduced ‘willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.’ To the extent that corporations are allowed to exert undue influence in electoral races, the speech of the eventual winners of those races may also be chilled. Politicians who fear that a certain corporation can make or break their reelection chances may be cowed into silence about that corporation. On a variety of levels, unregulated corporate electioneering might diminish the ability of citizens to ‘hold officials accountable to the people,’ and disserve the goal of a public debate that is ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’"

"A man who does not speak when he ought, shall not be heard when he desires to speak."

"It is not reasonable afterwards to allow the party to complain of that irregularity, of which, if he had availed himself in the first instance, all the expense would have been rendered unnecessary."

"I think it is now clearly established that counsel appearing for a party in an action is held out as having authority, and has full authority, as to all matters which relate to the conduct of the action and its settlement, and further that, notwithstanding a limit may have been placed upon the authority of counsel, the party for whom he appears is bound by such settlement unless the fact that the counsel's apparent authority had been limited was communicated to the other side."

"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

"You cannot consent to a thing unless you have knowledge of it."

"Parties cannot by consent give to the Court a power which it would not have without it."

"I have very often had occasion to say, that acquiescence is founded on knowledge, and that a man cannot be said to acquiesce in a transaction if he is not proved to have had knowledge of it. I think that this principle requires to be attended to in all cases turning upon acquiescence."

"(TH: In Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United, he pointed out that corporations in their modern form didn’t even exist when the Constitution was written in 1787 and got its first ten amendments in 1791, including the First which protects free speech)"

"13 million children are hungry in America. Yet most politicians do not even talk about it... The political establishment has simply normalized the despair of millions of American children who are chronically traumatized by poverty, hunger, and all manner of violence. This is what happens when government becomes more an instrument of corporate profits then of conscience... This country shouldn’t be run like a business, it should be run like a family."

"Modern consent, then, is a very specific, narrowly defined legal concept developed at the end of the eighteenth century in part to differentiate full citizens from partial citizens or non-citizens. It is not a vague or open idea: citizens-mature, sane, politically active individuals-are capable of cosnnet. Partial citizens, passive citizens, or non citizens-those below the ae of maturity, those declared insane, orthe politically inactive-are not. In ther eam of sexual crime, the most obvious manifestation of this notibly is in legislation on statutory rape where, whether or not a child consents to sex according to conventional standards, the activity is strll criminal because the child has not become a full citizen and thus capable of consent according to political and legal standards. Children, however, are noy the only partial citizens or non-citizens regulated by national or international political structures, and it is here that the cosnent/bodily integrity formula becomes problematic. Another increasingly recognizable non-citizen or partial citizen is the (internal or external) refugee-mature, sane regualted, but not in any way a full political actor. Indeed, what recent national and international interpetations of consent and bodily integrity have produced from the perspective of refugees-even, or especially, to the extent that they have been endowed with ersatz riights-is a situation in which any and all sexual or reproductive behavior on their part has become crinimal. Sex has become rape and reproduction has become criminal abortion and/or criminal procreation."

"Perhaps the hallmark of late twentieth-century critical legal studies (CLS) writing was the claim that this widely made inference from consent to value is simply unwarranted. People’s abilities to ascertain and act on their own self-interest are limited, the critical scholars argued. The capacity of countries, institutions, multinational corporations, social forces, or simply stronger parties to create in individual subjects a willingness to consent to transactions or changes that do not in fact increase their well being is well documented. “Consent” of the weaker can be manufactured to serve the interests of dominant parties, and when it is manufactured, it is not a good measure of the value to the weak of that to which consent was given. Neither skepticism regarding the good motives or knowledge base of the “paternalist,” nor faith in the self-regarding preferences of the individual, justify the unexamined inference that a consensual change so extracted is a good one for all affected parties. The degree to which a consensual change is perceived as such is the degree to which it has been unduly legitimated by the consent that preceded it. The legitimation cost of consensual transactions, then, is the sometimes unwarranted belief in the increased value of the change to which consent was proffered."

"Some schools recommend or require that for consent to be valid, it must be given while sober, and others rule that consent cannot be given when a student is “under the influence,” vague standards that could cover any amount of alcohol consumption. Some embrace “affirmative consent,” which, at its limit, requires that each touch, each time, be preceded by the explicit, verbal granting of permission. At times, the directives given to students about sex veer squarely into the absurd: A training video on sexual consent for incoming students at Brown University, for instance, included this stipulation, among many others: “Consent is knowing that my partner wants me just as much as I want them.”"

"The second meaning of “legitimation,” developed in critical scholarship of the late twentieth century, concerns the nature and role of consent and the specific impact of an individual’s consent to the perceived justice of either particular transactions or entire institutions to which consent is given. In liberal market economies and the legal orders that govern them, the act of consent generally insulates the object of consent even from criticism, much less legal challenge. Consent to the terms of a contract, for example, almost always insulates the fairness of the terms of that contract from both public scrutiny and legal attack, regardless of how harmful or injurious that contract turns out to be to any of the parties that consented to it. If the contract was consensual, it cannot possibly be unfair to execute it against a later regretful party, no matter how harmful its terms might appear to be. Widely shared norms against paternalistic legislation, an ideological and seemingly bottomless belief in the ability of individuals to understand and act on their own welfare, skepticism regarding the motivation of regulatory bodies or meddling individuals who would seek to upset consensual individual transactions, and at least for some, a definitional commitment to consent as that which maximizes value, all burden attempts to intervene in or even question contract terms. They may do so through “unconscionability” or “duress” limits in the common law of contract, or through more explicitly regulatory means, such as consumer protection legislation or workers’ rights laws. I have argued elsewhere that the same dynamic increasingly limits critique of intimate sexual relations: consensual sex is viewed not only as not rape, but also as not subjected appropriately to moral or political criticism. To subject consensual sex to criticism is puritanical, moralistic, or worse. Lastly, in the public sphere, “consent” operates similarly: the consent of the governed legitimates whatever governance follows. We can generalize from these three examples of the impact of consent in the private, intimate, and public spheres: consent cleans or purifies that to which the consent is given, and thereby insulates it from political critique as well as legal challenge. Questioning the value of that to which consent has been given is politically suspect—because it is unjustifiably paternalist, logically incoherent, or both."

"Sometimes, of course, there is no ambiguity, as when a woman says no, or sends visible, consistent physical signals that she is not consenting to a sexual act. But many schools no longer require women to say or signal no in order for an encounter to be considered nonconsensual. Affirmative-consent rules, particularly when written or interpreted expansively, do that directly; in California, Connecticut, and New York, affirmative-consent codes for college students have been signed into law. So do policies that treat women who have been drinking—but who are not by any objective standard incapacitated—as unable to give consent. The problem with both types of policies is that they are intrusive and impractical. Couples are especially unlikely to adhere to contract-negotiation-style bedroom interactions (and it is no small intrusion on privacy to require them to do so). The proscription on drinking before sex is certain to be widely ignored; sexually inexperienced students (and even experienced ones) often drink in order to lower their inhibitions. And yet ignoring these rules puts men in great jeopardy should their partner later reconsider what seemed to have been a consensual encounter. In the world outside campus, people who are merely intoxicated, not incapacitated, can legally consent to sex, even if they make poor or regrettable decisions. In many states, sex with an incapacitated partner is a crime when the accused knows, or reasonably should know, about the incapacity and intends to act without consent. Recently, some schools have adopted clearer standards for incapacitation, including the requirement that the accused should reasonably know about the incapacity in order for consent to be invalidated. But on many campuses, no such knowledge or intent is required for an adjudication to determine that a violation has occurred."

"I would like to consider some further aspects of the role of consent in the early twentieth century legislation. First of all, when we conceive of consent theory as a theory absent of any choice-operating as a means of delimiting borders rather than of defining behavior-the problems and contradictions that occur when it runs up against “reality”begin to make more sense. When Pateman, for instance, notes that, “consent as an ideology cannot be distinguished from habitual acquiscence, assent, silent dissent, submission, or even enforced submission. Unless refusal of consent or withdrawal of consent are real possibilities, we can no longer speak of “consent” in any genuine sense,”104 she is clearly understanding consent as something linked to juridical freedom or, more basically, to choice. Likewise, when Agamben, in his discussion of medical experimentation on prisoners in Nazi concentration camps or in United States prisons that that, The final criterion, which elicited general agreement, was the necessity of an explicit and voluntary consent on the part of the subject who was to be submitted to the experiment .. [T]he obvious hypocrisy of such documents cannot fail to leave one perplexed. To speak of free will and consent in the case of a person sentenced to death or of a detained person who must pay serious penalties is, at the very least, questionable, he is operating within the same framework. If, however, we understand consent as no more and no less than means of defining sovereign space-of collapsing political and biological borders and boundaries-the seemingly perverse or at least disingenuous insistence on consent in such situations becomes more reasonable. The question is not whether the individual “really” consented to what is, for all intents and purposes, sexual, social, reproductive, political, biological, or medical enslavement. It is instead the extent to which the consensual relationship has successfully defined both political and biological space. Indeed, we can see in these early approaches to reproduction, experimentation, and execution important precursors to the humane reliance on lethal injection-rather than, say, beheading, hanging, or electrocution-as a means of eliminating criminals in the modern United States. Above all a spectacle of consent, the lethal injection-absent any wound or executioner-plays out first and foremost as a doctor/patient relationship, the physician eliminating the biologically passive, juridically consenting citizen in the end for his own good."

"The appeal to permission as the source of authority involves no particular moral vision or understanding. It gives no value to permission. It simply recognizes that secular moral authority is the authority of permission. This appeal is a minimal condition in relying on what it is to resolve issues among moral strangers with moral authority; consent. It establishes a secularly acknowledgeable authority for its conclusions: agreement. By appealing to ethics as a means for peaceably negotiating moral disputes, one discloses as a necessary and sufficient condition…for a general secular ethics the requirement to respect the freedom of the participants in a moral controversy…as a basis for common moral authority."

"All general business corporation statues appear to date from well after 1800.. The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans they had in mind. The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it…. Unlike natural persons, corporations have ‘limited liability’ for their owners and managers, ‘perpetual life,’ separation of ownership and control, ‘and favorable treatment of the accumulation of assets….’ Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. ...It might be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

"We ought not to encourage vexatious prosecutions, which tend to throw corporations into confusion."

"It is a fiction, a shade, a nonentity, but a reality for legal purposes. A corporation aggregate is only in abstracto—it is invisible, immortal, and rests only in intendment and consideration of the law."

"The sheer infeasibility of a ‘just say yes, over and over again’ rule has been the subject of some appropriately incredulous critiques. How will campus triers of fact determine whether an ‘explicit yes’ was repeatedly rendered, satisfying the ongoing affirmative consent requirement? Students are encouraged, not entirely satirically, to tape their sexual encounters or to obtain a series of signed consent forms as their activities progress… Advocates of ongoing, explicit yes rules respond to these criticisms partly by explaining that the rules are intended to ‘send a message’ and ‘change the culture’. As the New York Times reports, ‘Many supporters of affirmative consent say its greatest power may lie in changing attitudes’. This is a telling defence that implicitly acknowledges the impracticality of the new rules and the likelihood that few if any people will actually comply with them. It’s also a chilling defence that practically endorses arbitrary, discriminatory enforcement regimes."

"An ethics of permission, however, can extend only to those who are capable of giving or refusing permission. Thus secular bioethics has a bias in favor of “persons,” where “person” is understood in terms of this prior notion of permission: persons are all and only those beings capable of entering into, or refusing to enter into agreement with others. One obvious consequence of this is that there can be no secular restraints on the morality of abortion: embryos and fetuses cannot enter into agreements, and so are left unprotected from those who would do them harm. The unborn are radically outside of the secular moral community."

"At best, consent is vital not because it insures safety but because it enables danger."

"I have not tried to investigate it. It’s no use. There is no information about corporations. There is only disinformation. Even after they collapse, imploding into a cratered ruin stinking of burnt stockholder and surrounded by an impenetrable barrier formed by members of Congress and other government officials holding hands and wearing yellow tape marked Private Property, No Trespassing, Keep Out, No Hunting, Fishing, or Accounting—even then there is no truth in them."

"It is respect, it is decency, it is empathy and it is the cornerstone of a good, healthy sexual encounter."

"Unjust social arrangements are themselves a kind of extortion, even violence, and consent to them does not bind."

"According to section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, someone consents when she or he "agrees by choice…and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice." That’s a clear definition. And there are some equally clear examples of when someone doesn’t have "freedom" or "capacity" to agree by choice or to "consent". For example: if someone is under the age of 16, they don’t legally have the capacity to consent to sex. If someone is asleep or unconscious, they don’t have the capacity to consent. If they’ve been kidnapped or held against their will, they don’t have the freedom to consent."

"Given the extensive involvement of state violence in the process by which the corporate elite not only achieved its wealth in the past but continues to maintain and augment it in the present, it is clear that the massive inequalities of wealth that characterise present-day “capitalist” society are radically inconsistent with any approach to justice in holdings that is even remotely Nozickian."

"Health care providers are legally required to obtain patients’ informed consent before performing a medical procedure. Specific definitions of informed consent may vary from state to state, but the goal of the informed consent process is well established: to ensure that patients understand the nature and risks of the procedure they are considering and that their decision to undergo it is voluntary (AAAHC, 2016; AMA, 2016; HHS, 2017a; Joint Commission, 2016). The discussion should also include options for analgesia, sedation, or anesthesia, including their associated risks and benefits (AANA, 2016; ASA Committee on Ethics, 2016)."

"At the moment it's no defence at all to say that person is consenting, because of Brown. People certainly can't consent to being killed, they can't consent to injury which amounts to actual bodily harm if it's in the course of S&M."