Since private corporations are corrupt as hell,

[Sarah Ibarruri]

and continuously damaging the middle class, I see absolutely no reason at all to not ADORE Anonymous for exposing them.

[rfranklin]

1. That's a somewhat haphazard way to regulate corporations...

I would rather see a return to the practices of the founding fathers. Corporations faced revocation of their charters and were not considered immortal as they are now. The death penalty for corporate persons was a reality.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. As of right now, I don't see that happening. Private corporations are a band of thugs

They got the taste of blood when the Republicans deregulated everything in their favor, and now they're about the worst criminals we have in our country. They have decimated our country.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. How wide is your brush?

NGOs and other entities are often private corporations. Some public corps are not angels either

[badtoworse]

4. What laws have they broken?

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. I'm a private corporation and I'm not corrupt as hell.

I even have the bank account to prove it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. I doubt yours is large enough to damage the country. nt

[Aerows]

10. Now you've hit on the real problem

These mega-corps need to be broken up into smaller entities. That would provide more jobs, and rejuvenate communities. These huge, faceless corporations couldn't operate the way they do now if they were smaller.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. No doubt about it. nt

[Vincardog]

6. The founding fathers revolution was AGAINST a corporation. The never envisioned we the people

would allow legal fictional "persons" to have ANY human rights.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. That's part of the problem, that, lobbying, and deregulation. nt

[gateley]

8. I'm a big fan of Anon, and although sometimes what they expose makes me

think they may have pushed it (home numbers, for example) on the whole what they've shown us has been stuff that shouldn't have been hidden, and that we should know. I just wish more people paid attention, and more was DONE.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. I agree nt

[alc]

9. SOME private corporations are corrupt as hell

Call it MOST if you want - I disagree but concede that you may be right. I realize many people are against private ownership (those companies are corrupt by nature if you feel that way and I can accept your opinion but don't see that changing in the US).

There are good companies will well-intentioned executives/owners, especially small and medium sized ones. We're better off identifying the good ones and working with them rather than condemning them along with the ones that are corrupt.

The middle class (and lower class) depends on private companies. Pissing them off won't help. Subjecting small/medium businesses to excessive regulations/paperwork that tries to stop corruption also stops the small/medium business from competing with the big (and more likely corrupt) corporation that already has the lawyers and staff to deal with regulations. And promoting an anti-corporate attitude won't help (unless your goal is to end private ownership)

[Aerows]

11. Small and medium corporations

Are not the problem. If they screw up, they are small enough to be held accountable. The problem is that we have too many HUGE corporations that are so big, it's impossible to keep them in check. They need to be broken up into smaller pieces.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. Exactly. And at this moment, giant corporations run our election system, our money supply,

and everything else in between.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. I'm not against private ownership at all. In fact, I think it's vital to a country's health

However, the degree of corporate corruption in this country has practically destroyed our country. It absolutely has redistributed the wealth of the country to the top, and corporate corruption has not abated.

The important lesson to keep in mind from this economic disaster we're living through (and from which I'm not entirely sure the U.S. will recover) is that corporations exist for one reason, and one reason only: to make as much money as possible. They have no other purpose.

To attribute to them personhoods, or some sort of beneficent purpose, is delusional.

[badtoworse]

19. Corporations act in their own self-interest.

That does not make them corrupt.

[Aerows]

27. It does when they have too much power.

And they do.

[badtoworse]

29. How about some examples of actual corruption?

Corporations aren't in business to promote the general welfare; they're supposed to make money for their owners / investors. The OP can't seem to grasp that and IMO, equates actions designed maximize their investors returns to corruption. True corruption involves lawbreaking and the vast majority of corporations operate within the law.

[badtoworse]

31. What an erudite response - nt

[libtodeath]

14. Private business may not

be corrupt all the time but the majority of the owners are ruthless assholes that would piss on you as easy as looking at you if it meant more dollars in their pockets or another "work" vacation.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Amen to that. What's more, corporations have only 1 primary purpose in life: to make money. nt

[Vincardog]

26. Corporations used to be required to provide some useful societal function. The right wing

has managed to strip that requirement from their charters. We need to return it.

[Nye Bevan]

15. All of them? Including DemocraticUnderground, LLC? (nt)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. The overwhelming majority of corporations exist only to make a profit

And not for other reasons.

They are not required by law to have any sense of morality, and it is understood that all they need to stand for is to make money, however, that is done.

[badtoworse]

22. As long as they operate within the law, there is nothing wrong with that.

Why would anyone invest in them if they did not operate to make a profit? There are non-profit corporations, but when you send them money, it's called a donation, not an investment.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. Exactly, which is why they need to be denied personhood and an assumption that they're benevolent

They are neither, and, as we have seen, can bring the downfall of an entire nation and its people.

[Newest Reality]

23. That's true.

I think we have distinguished between a blanket view of incorporation, first off. What most of us are having problems with are mega-corporations and mulch-nationals.

I've tended to think that the law that primarily requires corporations to produce profit as a invitation to disaster and that seems to be what contributes to our economic and social crises in the long-run.

While I don't expect corporations to be "moral" entities, it would make sense to consider a social benefit/detriment factor added to the corporate model, above and beyond the idea of regulation.

Since large corporations use our commons and infrastructure and benefit from our collective participation, then a benefit/detriment index, (with incentives and penalties) could be a progressive solution. However, when you think about it, it would not only be staunchly opposed, it could create rapid change in the system at large.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. I love what you said, and it makes perfect sense:

it would make sense to consider a social benefit/detriment factor added to the corporate model, above and beyond the idea of regulation.

Since large corporations use our commons and infrastructure and benefit from our collective participation, then a benefit/detriment index, (with incentives and penalties) could be a progressive solution. However, when you think about it, it would not only be staunchly opposed, it could create rapid change in the system at large.

[Aerows]

28. Agree wholeheartedly

Corporations are leeching off of the people who enable them too much. They are going to scream and cry, because that is what they do for a living, and what they have to do for shareholders. Even THEY realize when it is time to cough it up. They will because they want a better world, too, despite the fact that they are greedy.