News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[brainstorm]

I get your argument, but one is much more severe than the other. Although corruption may be impossible to eliminate, I do think we should make the attempt to limit it as much as possible.

I agree. I just think that many people fail to see corruption on both sides of the same coin because they assume that institutions are responsible for corruption instead of individuals. In this case, people blame corporations for the corruption when, in reality, corporatism is a general problem whether it is practiced as informal collaboration among individuals or institutionalized by them in corporate charters, legal status, laws, etc.

My point is you have to get to the very heart of the problem to solve it, which is that people sacrifice their independence for organized coordination and cooperation. I think if people would collude less, there would be less power to abuse - but this goes back to my original point, which is that as long as there is power available to be had, people will want to have it and use it as much as possible. You can try to regulate it, but they will just abuse the regulatory power as a means of further enhancing their corporate strength (finding legal loopholes, etc.)

 

[Al68]

Corporations have their own money and assets.

The owner of those assets and money is the stockholders. The corporation exercises those ownership rights by proxy.

In fact, if individuals mix their personal incomes with corporate incomes, they could lose limited liability protection.

The individuals never had limited liability protection for their individual finances to start with, so that's irrelevant to this point.

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.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/070327washingtondc.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/09/02/Pfizer.fine/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/criminal/highlights/2009/ca-shellfish-co-04-13-09.pdf

Why would you respond with three links to stories in which nobody was protected from criminal prosecution for their actions?

What if a corporation enjoys a major investment from a foreign entity such as a person or government, how do you extend your argument to such a case?

What argument? I just pointed out the reality of what a corporation is. It's not a person in the relevant sense here. It's a tool used by real people. The question is what rights do the real people using the tool have.

Do you believe a foreign entity has the right to participate in our domestic political process?

If you mean a real person, it depends on what you mean by "participate". I see no justification for restricting anyone's political speech, for example, because they aren't a U.S. citizen, as long as they aren't otherwise committing a crime such as fraud.

If you're referring to a corporation, again, asking if a corporation has political rights is like asking if a car has the right to run a stop sign. Like a car, a corporation is a tool used by people, and whether to allow a tool to be used for an action depends on what rights the tool's user has. It makes no sense to speak of the rights of a tool.

And what would seem to be obvious is that when people say that a corporation "committed a crime", in reality there is a real person that actually committed that crime, using the corporation as a tool. The person who uses the tool to commit a crime is the real criminal, not the tool itself. Like any tool, a corporation can be used for good or evil, but is not inherently good or evil itself.

And when people say a corporation has "rights", it's merely being used as a proxy (tool) to exercise its stockholders' rights.

In a basic nutshell, my argument is that corporate personhood should be limited to conducting business. If the individual wants to be political, allow him or her to participate with his or her own money.

If you're referring to political speech, the relevant question is whether a real person has the right to engage in free speech using a corporate entity as a tool. Whether the tool itself has free speech rights isn't a logical question to ask, and isn't literally what is meant by a corporation's "right to free speech".

 

[SixNein]

The owner of those assets and money is the stockholders.

But they can not touch those assets directly. They can sell their stocks to another interested buyer at some agreed upon price, but they can't just walk into the company and take whatever they want. They have a collective ownership instead of direct ownership.

Why would you respond with three links to stories in which nobody was protected from criminal prosecution for their actions? What argument?

These companies were all named as the defendants in criminal charges. The people who made the calls to commit the crimes did not get named.

I just pointed out the reality of what a corporation is. It's not a person in the relevant sense here. It's a tool used by real people. The question is what rights do the real people using the tool have.If you mean a real person, it depends on what you mean by "participate". I see no justification for restricting anyone's political speech, for example, because they aren't a U.S. citizen, as long as they aren't otherwise committing a crime such as fraud.

No, but the corporate sense of personhood has been growing. Do you not see any reason to limit such a sense of personhood? Would you support the rights of the republic of China to run political advertisements for your state senate race?

If you're referring to a corporation, again, asking if a corporation has political rights is like asking if a car has the right to run a stop sign. Like a car, a corporation is a tool used by people, and whether to allow a tool to be used for an action depends on what rights the tool's user has. It makes no sense to speak of the rights of a tool.

Perhaps you should read:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

And what would seem to be obvious is that when people say that a corporation "committed a crime", in reality there is a real person that actually committed that crime, using the corporation as a tool. The person who uses the tool to commit a crime is the real criminal, not the tool itself. Like any tool, a corporation can be used for good or evil, but is not inherently good or evil itself.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/corporate_criminality.html#Q3

And when people say a corporation has "rights", it's merely being used as a proxy (tool) to exercise its stockholders' rights. If you're referring to political speech, the relevant question is whether a real person has the right to engage in free speech using a corporate entity as a tool. Whether the tool itself has free speech rights isn't a logical question to ask, and isn't literally what is meant by a corporation's "right to free speech".

As I said above, not all of the individuals are under constitutional protection. Should we just allow all people of this planet receive constitutional protection and name them all as citizens? How about states? Should states allow everyone as well?

 

[brainstorm]

But they can not touch those assets directly. They can sell their stocks to another interested buyer at some agreed upon price, but they can't just walk into the company and take whatever they want. They have a collective ownership instead of direct ownership.

Share ownership is representational ownership, so "ownership" is a relative term. It's more like a simulation of ownership. In reality, corporatism works by delegated rights and responsibilities to everyone involved, including shareholders. By doing so, independent individual power is restricted, along with the ability to "own" anything directly.

No, but the corporate sense of personhood has been growing. Do you not see any reason to limit such a sense of personhood? Would you support the rights of the republic of China to run political advertisements for your state senate race?

What does "personhood" have to do with paying for advertising, political or otherwise? People pool money, resources, and power. Is it a good thing necessarily? No. Do they automatically become a single corporate unit or "person" when they do it? No, it's just a powerful metaphorical image for the functional effect of cooperation and coordination.

As I said above, not all of the individuals are under constitutional protection. Should we just allow all people of this planet receive constitutional protection and name them all as citizens? How about states? Should states allow everyone as well?

When did this go from being about corporatism to being about which people should be citizens and which shouldn't? What SHOULD be done is that "internal" corporate affairs should be subject to constitutional limitations. For example, it should not be possible to ignore basic rights of the accused when evaluating employees. Managers should have to notify an employee when that person is held accountable for something so they can defend themselves. Otherwise managers should not allow their suspicions or informal sense of a person to influence their treatment of that person. In other words, the constitution provides guidelines for respecting individuals rights and freedoms, and I don't see why these rights and freedoms should be abridged just because someone has entered into an employment contract.

 

[SixNein]

What does "personhood" have to do with paying for advertising, political or otherwise? People pool money, resources, and power. Is it a good thing necessarily? No. Do they automatically become a single corporate unit or "person" when they do it? No, it's just a powerful metaphorical image for the functional effect of cooperation and coordination.

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

When did this go from being about corporatism to being about which people should be citizens and which shouldn't? What SHOULD be done is that "internal" corporate affairs should be subject to constitutional limitations. For example, it should not be possible to ignore basic rights of the accused when evaluating employees. Managers should have to notify an employee when that person is held accountable for something so they can defend themselves. Otherwise managers should not allow their suspicions or informal sense of a person to influence their treatment of that person. In other words, the constitution provides guidelines for respecting individuals rights and freedoms, and I don't see why these rights and freedoms should be abridged just because someone has entered into an employment contract.

By the 14th amendment, companies started in the United States become citizens with constitutional protection. I suppose the core has to do with sovereignty.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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

For the purpose of this thread, would you enumerate the legal powers that bother you?

 

[brainstorm]

By the 14th amendment, companies started in the United States become citizens with constitutional protection. I suppose the core has to do with sovereignty.

So your big concern is that ppl without citizenship can create US corporations? You wish to isolate the US economy from foreign investment?

 

[SixNein]

So your big concern is that ppl without citizenship can create US corporations? You wish to isolate the US economy from foreign investment?

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

 

[brainstorm]

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

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?

 

[mugaliens]

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 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...

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

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.

 

[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.