The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[brainstorm]

I concur, brainstorm. That sounds amazingly like "taxation without representation," and if I'm not mistaken, it was one of the principle reasons behind our "little experiment" eleven score and thirteen years ago...

That's only when they're taxed. But you're right that corporations would be taxed even if they were not represented in government. I was more interested if people would seriously be willing to isolate a US economy from any and all foreign investment. I wonder how such a US economy would work. What would happen to the dollar, for example? Would only interstate trade be allowed and international borders closed completely? That's hard to imagine although maybe possible with a lot of sacrifice on both sides of "the border."

On the other hand, a believe a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should involve...

...people.

Corporate entities are not people.

Yes, but the only thing that can make people act as individuals without corporate cooperation is the people themselves. Even if you would take away their right to incorporate their labor and capital legally, they would find ways of doing it informally until they became convinced of the righteousness of individual independence.

 

[SixNein]

So what you want is for people to invest their money in the US economy but relinquish their say in how the money is used?

Your beginning to build strawmen. A foreign entity does not need full constitutional access in order to conduct business. There are treaties protecting and outlining their rights.

 

[SixNein]

That's only when they're taxed. But you're right that corporations would be taxed even if they were not represented in government. I was more interested if people would seriously be willing to isolate a US economy from any and all foreign investment. I wonder how such a US economy would work. What would happen to the dollar, for example? Would only interstate trade be allowed and international borders closed completely? That's hard to imagine although maybe possible with a lot of sacrifice on both sides of "the border."

This is off topic, but one can isolate the economy through a tariff system.

Yes, but the only thing that can make people act as individuals without corporate cooperation is the people themselves. Even if you would take away their right to incorporate their labor and capital legally, they would find ways of doing it informally until they became convinced of the righteousness of individual independence.

Are you done building strawmen?

 

[brainstorm]

Are you done building strawmen?

We're just looking at corporatism in different ways. I look at it as an elaborate institutional architecture for formalizing and regulating economic cooperation. That's not a strawman; it is the fundamental reality of what incorporation does.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I do not wish to extend citizenship rights to non-citizens through a proxy.

Which rights are you concerned about?

 

[SixNein]

Which rights are you concerned about?

The constitutional extension through the 14th amendment.

To clarify, the 14th amendment is the one that says all persons born in the United States become citizens automatically. The amendment was passed shortly after the civil war. A case eventually came before the supreme court that set a precedent that corporations were covered under the "persons" language in the amendment.

For example, the recent supreme court decision to remove the cap on spending on political advertisements by corporations. You see, such a cap violates the artificial person's first amendment right to 'free speech'.

 

[SixNein]

We're just looking at corporatism in different ways. I look at it as an elaborate institutional architecture for formalizing and regulating economic cooperation. That's not a strawman; it is the fundamental reality of what incorporation does.

I'm looking at it in terms of law and governance. Although a corporation is not an actual person, the law sees a corporation as an actual person. You are not making this distinction, and you are leaving it out of your methods of sociological reasoning.

And you are building strawmen. For example:

"So what you want is for people to invest their money in the US economy but relinquish their say in how the money is used?"

I never made such an argument. In addition, corporations existed and functioned in America for a very long time BEFORE the 14th amendment was passed and constitutional rights extended to corporations by supreme court precedent.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The constitutional extension through the 14th amendment.

So you think that it should be possible to force corporations to quarter soldiers?

(On the issue of the first, specifically press and speech, this has its own thread and should probably be discussed there.)

 

[SixNein]

So you think that it should be possible to force corporations to quarter soldiers?

(On the issue of the first, specifically press and speech, this has its own thread and should probably be discussed there.)

I expect to see a case in the future over the 5th amendment. Under the 5th amendment, a corporation would not have to turn over documents on grounds of self incrimination.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I expect to see a case in the future over the 5th amendment. Under the 5th amendment, a corporation would not have to turn over documents on grounds of self incrimination.

Considering that natural persons don't have that right, I see this as highly unlikely.

 

[Al68]

By personhood, I'm referring to the legal powers such corporations are granted.

What powers are "granted" to a corporation that its stockholders didn't already have? It enhances the ability of stockholders to do business, just as any tool does, but nothing extra is "granted" by personhood".

What do you think the consequence would be of government not recognizing corporate personhood? It's not like the corporation wouldn't exist, it just could never be named as a defendant, since it is not a person. And no law would ever apply to a corporation in any way. Why do you think governments started recognizing personhood?

When a corporation is "fined" for a wrongdoing, indirectly fining its stockholders, it's analogous to a car being confiscated from a drunk driver. The corporation, like the car, is the tool used for the crime, not the "doer of the deed".

In addition, although it's easier to fine a corporation for a crime, it is too often a substitute for punishing the actual criminals directly. Not only do the actual criminals get a watered down punishment, innocent stockholders get a share of the punishment deserved by the criminals but not by them.

Personhood used for civil and contractual purposes doesn't have this shortcoming, since if a corporatate entity owes someone money, the stockholders are legitimately obligated for the debt up to the amount of their investment, terms which they and all creditors agreed to.

But if a crime is committed, the real people responsible should be investigated and prosecuted. It is you that are ascribing too much "personhood" to corporations, if you think they should be treated as a committer of a crime instead of as a tool used by the real crime committers. A corporation, like a car, is not a real person, and cannot itself logically be responsible for any wrongdoing. It can only be responsible by proxy, and I don't like the idea of proxy punishments for crimes.

 

[CRGreathouse]

In addition, although it's easier to fine a corporation for a crime, it is too often a substitute for punishing the actual criminals directly.

Of course this is a different issue from corporate personhood or rights!

 

[russ_watters]

Considering that natural persons don't have that right, I see this as highly unlikely.

Indeed, if you flip the issue over, you could say that the "personhood" of a corporation is simply to ensure that the individuals who own it don't lose their rights by joining together.

 

[brainstorm]

Indeed, if you flip the issue over, you could say that the "personhood" of a corporation is simply to ensure that the individuals who own it don't lose their rights by joining together.

They only lose personal accountability and liability. The bigger problem, imo however, is the general cultural mentality that individuals are subsidiaries of a corporate economy.

 

[SixNein]

Considering that natural persons don't have that right, I see this as highly unlikely.

Corporations are being granted constitutional protection under the 14th amendment. If they are granted constitutional protection, they have 5th amendment rights.

Lets just take a look at the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[mheslep]

Corporations are being granted constitutional protection under the 14th amendment. If they are granted constitutional protection, they have 5th amendment rights.

Lets just take a look at the 14th:

That first 'All Persons born ...' sentence should go, be replaced, IMO. Virtually no other modern country has such a citizen in the cradle guarantee.

 

[SixNein]

What powers are "granted" to a corporation that its stockholders didn't already have? It enhances the ability of stockholders to do business, just as any tool does, but nothing extra is "granted" by personhood".

I have repeatedly explained what powers corporations are granted that stockholders did not already have.

Not all stockholders are:
1. A resident of the state.
2. A resident of the nation.

What do you think the consequence would be of government not recognizing corporate personhood? It's not like the corporation wouldn't exist, it just could never be named as a defendant, since it is not a person. And no law would ever apply to a corporation in any way. Why do you think governments started recognizing personhood?

Nice strawman argument.

I have never suggested corporate personhood should be removed; instead, my argument has been that it should be limited.

When a corporation is "fined" for a wrongdoing, indirectly fining its stockholders, it's analogous to a car being confiscated from a drunk driver. The corporation, like the car, is the tool used for the crime, not the "doer of the deed".

Stockholders in most cases do not manage day to day operations of a company. In addition, these fines are in many cases small in comparison to the damage caused.

But if a crime is committed, the real people responsible should be investigated and prosecuted. It is you that are ascribing too much "personhood" to corporations, if you think they should be treated as a committer of a crime instead of as a tool used by the real crime committers. A corporation, like a car, is not a real person, and cannot itself logically be responsible for any wrongdoing. It can only be responsible by proxy, and I don't like the idea of proxy punishments for crimes.

Again, you have made another strawman argument. You said in another post:

This has been covered extensively in other threads, but corporate personhood provides no protection for anyone, stockholder, manager, or employee, from criminal prosecution for any crime they commit.

I provided links of 3 different companies that were named criminal defendants. The people who broke the law by making these calls did not get named.


Now, your saying:

"It is you that are ascribing too much "personhood" to corporations, if you think they should be treated as a committer of a crime instead of as a tool used by the real crime committers."

Again, my argument is that corporate person-hood should be limited. Quite frankly, I don't think there should be ANY protection against such crimes. When these crimes involve murder, I think people involved should see life in prison instead of a fine for the stockholders.

 

[Al68]

I have repeatedly explained what powers corporations are granted that stockholders did not already have.

Not all stockholders are:
1. A resident of the state.
2. A resident of the nation.

You have repeatedly failed to explain that, and again here.

I have never suggested corporate personhood should be removed; instead, my argument has been that it should be limited.

Limited how? To civil and contractual cases like I have been saying?

But you can't have it both ways in criminal cases. If you want to take any action against the stockholders of a corporation via the corporate entity, then the stockholders have rights via the corporate entity. Either the corporate entity is a person or not a person. If it is, then it is subject to legal action against its stockholders and has their rights by proxy. If it isn't then it has no rights and is not subject to legal action.

Another way of putting it is that if a corporation is not considered a person, then it has no need for rights. Why would a tool need rights?

Stockholders in most cases do not manage day to day operations of a company.

And this is why they should not be punished for a crime they didn't commit while the actual criminal gets away with it.

I provided links of 3 different companies that were named criminal defendants. The people who broke the law by making these calls did not get named.

In the three cases you referenced, no real person had any legal protection from criminal prosecution. The prosecutor just chose to take action against their tool instead.

Quite frankly, I don't think there should be ANY protection against such crimes.

There isn't. A prosecutor choosing to prosecute a tool instead of its user isn't a legal protection, its a lazy prosecutor.

When these crimes involve murder, I think people involved should see life in prison instead of a fine for the stockholders.

I've been saying that all along, but what about crimes other than murder? Should stockholders instead of the commiter of the crime be punished?

Corporations are being granted constitutional protection under the 14th amendment.

Again, only by proxy. Fining a corporation is depriving people of their property. Real people (stockholders). It's pretty twisted logic to suggest that requiring due process to deprive real people of their property is unnecessary because the corporation itself isn't a person, after claiming it was a person for the purpose of justifying the action taken against the stockholders via the corporation.

 

[brainstorm]

Aren't corporations more like states than individuals? Maybe they should be governed by the constitution as states. They could have a separate house of congress with their own representatives.

 

[Char. Limit]

Aren't corporations more like states than individuals? Maybe they should be governed by the constitution as states. They could have a separate house of congress with their own representatives.

Give the unprecedented power of states' rights to the corporations? Are you mad?

I can't think of a single way that giving them states' rights would be a good idea. It would only make the existing problem of corporate power worse.

 

[Al68]

Aren't corporations more like states than individuals?

No, they're like individuals for these purposes, since they have no political power, only power over their own resources just like any individual.

Maybe they should be governed by the constitution as states.

I'm not sure what this means, since states are not governed by the constitution, the constitution is the legal document in which the federal government is chartered by the states, and governs the federal government. Although the constitution does transfer some power from the states to the federal government, it is not the source of the power of the states like it's the source of all legitimate federal government power.

From the way some politicians act, one might think the states were political subdivisions of the federal government, but this is not the case. The federal government is a creation of the states, and its legitimate powers are determined by the states via the (amendable) constitution.

 

[Gokul43201]

C'mon y'allz! The Tea Party just had what was probably their biggest rally ever and you're debating the personhood of corporations (a half-year-old issue)??

Get with the times!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

C'mon y'allz! The Tea Party just had what was probably their biggest rally ever and you're debating the personhood of corporations (a half-year-old issue)??

Get with the times!

Not to mention that it was more a religious rally, than a political one. It appears that Beck is trying to position himself as the next Jerry Falwell... with Sarah Palin at his side.

Those attending wanted red meat, but instead they got a red herring.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have wondered when the anti-intellectual moron worshipers that demand a return to America's Christian roots will get the memo that their other alleged heroes (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Paine, etc.) were mostly intellectuals who were unswayed by Christianity (and that's putting it mildly).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have wondered when the anti-intellectual moron worshipers that demand a return to America's Christian roots will get the memo that their other alleged heroes (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Paine, Henry, etc.) were mostly intellectuals who were unswayed by Christianity (and that's putting it mildly).

The new catch phrase is that tea partiers are just like the founding fathers. Nevermind that their objections are mostly fantasy.

Yes, Beck specifically wants to see more religion in politics. The tea party is quickly becoming a religious movement - and an anti-Constitutional one at that!

 

[mheslep]

I have wondered when the anti-intellectual moron worshipers that demand a return to America's Christian roots will get the memo that their other alleged heroes (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Paine, etc.) were mostly intellectuals who were unswayed by Christianity (and that's putting it mildly).

Unswayed? No, Paine maybe. Not the rest in that list.

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

 

[Al68]

I have wondered when the anti-intellectual moron worshipers that demand a return to America's Christian roots will get the memo that their other alleged heroes (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Paine, etc.) were mostly intellectuals who were unswayed by Christianity (and that's putting it mildly).

I have to differ greatly with that, I think they were greatly "swayed" by Christianity, but in a much different way.

I would say that it was their religious beliefs that led them to oppose state sanctioned religions for at least two reasons: First, Christians were historically often the victims of religious persecution, and second, they didn't want their religion to be corrupted by government. We shouldn't forget that they had a vastly different idea of what the role of government should be, and controlling, shaping, regulating, or even influencing society in general wasn't it.

The intended recipients of government force were criminals and invaders, not peaceful citizens. This is a very Christian ideal, or at least it was to them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Maybe I should clarify what I meant by 'unswayed'. Most of those people did not, to pick a simple illustrative example, believe in the divinity of Christ¹. They probably all agreed that it had some redeeming moral/philosophical value, but that's a far cry from the Christianity espoused by the Palins and the Becks. Adams, for instance, considered organized Christianity of his time to be a superstition propagating fraud² (and he was probably the one of the most sympathetic towards Christianity among that lot).

1. This is from memory of a documentary on, I think, PBS a long time ago. Probably wikiable - will look for ref if needed.
2. See wiki page linked a couple posts up

 

[jwxie]

The march to WH this past weekend was silly.

Why? What they said were false claims. Come on lo. Traditional American value? I thought the value was equated with the American dreams. HAHAA

To me the march is another political rally. Look, you got Sarah Palin. Hahahahahaaaa

 

[SixNein]

You have repeatedly failed to explain that

People of foreign nations do not have constitutional rights (outside of those with dual citizenship).

Another and different example is that states often extend special privileges to large corporations. The corporations are in turn using the funds created by these special privileges in politics.

, and again here.Limited how? To civil and contractual cases like I have been saying?

Corporations should not be able to participate in politics.

But you can't have it both ways in criminal cases. If you want to take any action against the stockholders of a corporation via the corporate entity, then the stockholders have rights via the corporate entity. Either the corporate entity is a person or not a person. If it is, then it is subject to legal action against its stockholders and has their rights by proxy. If it isn't then it has no rights and is not subject to legal action.

My position is that limited liability protection should not be covering criminal issues. Again, I'm for limiting the idea of person-hood of corporations. I would be perfectly happy if the courts just called it a "tool" instead of a "person."

Another way of putting it is that if a corporation is not considered a person, then it has no need for rights. Why would a tool need rights?And this is why they should not be punished for a crime they didn't commit while the actual criminal gets away with it.In the three cases you referenced, no real person had any legal protection from criminal prosecution. The prosecutor just chose to take action against their tool instead.

There isn't. A prosecutor choosing to prosecute a tool instead of its user isn't a legal protection, its a lazy prosecutor.I've been saying that all along, but what about crimes other than murder? Should stockholders instead of the commiter of the crime be punished?Again, only by proxy. Fining a corporation is depriving people of their property. Real people (stockholders). It's pretty twisted logic to suggest that requiring due process to deprive real people of their property is unnecessary because the corporation itself isn't a person, after claiming it was a person for the purpose of justifying the action taken against the stockholders via the corporation.

I don't care if the prosecutor is lazy or hardworking. I only care about the fact that law allows the prosecutor to do it.

 

[Al68]

People of foreign nations do not have constitutional rights (outside of those with dual citizenship).

I agree, but that doesn't explain how a corporation is granted special rights, it only explains how some foreign citizens may be granted special rights, ie treated as if they were U.S. citizens. If that's what you meant by "granted extra rights, then I'll agree.

Another and different example is that states often extend special privileges to large corporations.

That's not a consequence of personhood, it's a consequence of corrupt state legislators. You seem to be mixing up different issues here.

Corporations should not be able to participate in politics.

Again, you are assuming personhood. The question is whether or not real people should be permitted to participate in politics, using corporations as tools.

My position is that limited liability protection should not be covering criminal issues. Again, I'm for limiting the idea of person-hood of corporations. I would be perfectly happy if the courts just called it a "tool" instead of a "person."

That's what I've been saying.

I don't care if the prosecutor is lazy or hardworking. I only care about the fact that law allows the prosecutor to do it.

A hardworking prosecutor would prosecute criminals instead of their tools.

 

[brainstorm]

People of foreign nations do not have constitutional rights (outside of those with dual citizenship).

If it is truly self evident that ALL people are created equal, then why wouldn't the INALIENABLE rights of the constitution not apply to all people everywhere?

It seems that at some point, some people decided that it would be a lot more difficult to exploit people if you recognized their rights and freedoms so they had to figure out a way to define some people as being excluded from those rights and national citizenship became the defining factor.

Why shouldn't anyone anywhere be able to declare independence from colonial rule and establish a constitution that enumerates rights and protections for free citizens? If the constitution is not a copyrighted document, why can't they simply make reference to it?

 

[Evo]

If it is truly self evident that ALL people are created equal, then why wouldn't the INALIENABLE rights of the constitution not apply to all people everywhere?

It seems that at some point, some people decided that it would be a lot more difficult to exploit people if you recognized their rights and freedoms so they had to figure out a way to define some people as being excluded from those rights and national citizenship became the defining factor.

Why shouldn't anyone anywhere be able to declare independence from colonial rule and establish a constitution that enumerates rights and protections for free citizens? If the constitution is not a copyrighted document, why can't they simply make reference to it?

This makes no sense. The US constitution applies to the US. If other countries want to use the same ideas, they can, but it wouldn't the the US Constitution.

 

[brainstorm]

This makes no sense. The US constitution applies to the US. If other countries want to use the same ideas, they can, but it wouldn't the the US Constitution.

To me, this is like saying that the bible, the q'ran, or the lord of the rings only apply to Jews/Christians, Muslims, or Hobbits. In reality these are books/documents that express certain ideas about human nature, rights, and power. Anyone with the literacy skills to do so can read any of these books and claim to recognize their truth. That doesn't mean anyone will recognize their authority to claim that truth, but neither did the British authorities and so the colonists fought to establish recognition of their truths and rights.

I don't think that the US constitution is a collective instrument in the way you say "if other countries want to use the same ideas." The reason I say that is because it implies that if a subject of the UK monarchy recognizes that the rights of the US constitution applies to them, and the UK government denies that, then that person is in a similar situation to the colonists who rejected the UK government in favor of the ideas in the constitution.

So why would someone who believes in the US constitution condemn a UK citizen to subjugation under monarchy just because they're not a US citizen? If you believe in the rights and freedom of a republic, why wouldn't you recognize everyone's right to pursue the same freedoms and rights?

 

[Office_Shredder]

So why would someone who believes in the US constitution condemn a UK citizen to subjugation under monarchy just because they're not a US citizen? If you believe in the rights and freedom of a republic, why wouldn't you recognize everyone's right to pursue the same freedoms and rights?

What specifically do you think the US government should do about that? Take over the UK so that the person's right to free speech is established?The constitution is generally a set of ideals that are intended to be applicable to everyone, but the US only has authority over the US, so that's where its boundaries are.

On that note, if a non-citizen comes to the US, they still have all the protections under the constitution that a citizen would have, except for the possibility of deportation