So what's a person?

[Mythsaje]

A person is born of woman, a combination of the genetic traits of both parents. A person may be male or female, of any nationality, healthy or disabled, born into any family background. A person starts unable to focus its eyes, unable to even hold its own head up. It must sit up before it can crawl, crawl before it can walk, and walk before it can run. Or it may not be able to do many of these things, if it is born with some physical infirmity that makes it impossible. It breaths, and eats, and eliminates waste.

A person learns, adapts, and grows, observing the things around it and learning from these observations at an astounding rate. It learns to speak, its first words often being "mama" or "dada."

It celebrates birthdays and grows older in the eyes of the law. It goes to school, and learns how to read, to write, to work mathematics. It learns the history of its culture, and makes friends, and slowly evolves as a human being as it grows.

It grows to adulthood, falls in love, and loses love. It makes mistakes and pays for those mistakes. It learns the value of work, and the value of money. (hopefully).

It marries, if it's allowed to marry the person it loves that much, and may have a child of its own.

A person is born with the right to speak its mind, to follow the spiritual path dictated by its conscience, to defend itself against aggression. A person is mortal, and, as it grows older, grasps the meaning of this mortality. Someday it will fade from the earth, leaving only the memories of its life for others to cling to.

A corporation is formed for the sole purpose of making money. It does not breathe, though it may consume and produce waste. It does not have a beating heart of its own, and cannot grasp its own mortality or morality. It does not LIVE. It is an artificial construct that does not exist independently of its collective parts. It cannot feel pain, or guilt, though its individual members may feel these things. It cannot die, or be physically harmed. It cannot suffer for its mistakes and it cannot love.

It is NOT a person. It should not have the rights of a person. It is not born, does not learn to speak, does not crawl, walk, or run. It cannot grasp its own mortality because it is not mortal. It does not exist to propagate itself, it exists to maintain its own existence.

Not a person.

Not even close.

Respect REAL people. END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.

[Infinite Hope]

1. O for originality. Or...

at least V for variety. It's nice having an entry that differs from the rest here and is more than a "no-duh" question resulting largely from someone's urge to create a new thread.

Nice post.

[Mythsaje]

2. Thanks...

I try.

:)

[puebloknot]

6. You succeed! :)

[blonndee]

3. K & R -- well said! n/t

[OneBlueSky]

4. yes, end corporate personhood . . . but also end the toxic impact of corporations . . .

on virtually every aspect of our society and our culture . . .

corporations are the root of all evil in this nation and across the planet . . . corporate capitalism, in its current form, is largely responsible for EVERY major problem we face today . . . for example . . .

corporations that make ghastly profits from the Iraq war -- and from increasing oil prices . . .

corporations that pollute the air, water and land with no regard for the environment or for the future . . .

corporations that cavalierly move jobs overseas to increase shareholder profits, regardless of the impact on American workers . . .

corporations that create all kinds of new chemical compounds that pollute the environment and cause diseases like cancer . . .

corporations that degrade the food supply with genetically modified crops . . .

corporations that overfish the oceans to the point of destroying fish stocks . . .

corporations that endanger consumers through horrific factory farming practices . . .

corporations that make healthcare in the U.S. the most expensive and inefficient of any developed nation . . .

corporations that literally (and secretly) control the voting process and, more importantly, the vote counting process by which we "elect" our leaders . . .

corporations that write the laws "regulating" their own industries in ways that pretty much allow them to do whatever they wish in pursuit of bigger profits . . .

and on, and on, and on . . .

unless we recognize how toxic the current system of corporate capitalism is, and take drastic steps to reign it in by strictly regulating corporations, their behavior, and their profits, the problems we face today will seem like mere annoyances in future decades . . .

[Mythsaje]

5. A lot of their protections stem from the fact that they're

considered "people," with the rights that rightfully belong to REAL people. Ending corporate personhood would be a damn good first strike against all the things you mention.

[chknltl]

7. Loved it thank you...

There was time in American history, that corporate lobbying of government representatives was against the law...do you suppose we might have made a miscalculation somewhere along the way?

[lostinacause]

8. You may want to consider that corporate rights in some form or another

are generally necessary for growth and development. Corporations accomplish a necessary task in market oriented economies. The collect and utilize capital, allocate goods and generate profits. All of these things are not only beneficial but also vital to the success of an economy. It is no wonder the corporation is a large player in every developed economy including more societies that have a greater focus on equality.

When you look at the problem it is not the corporation. It is the incentives that a corporation faces. In this sense the problem is not the corporation but the way the system and corporations interact. If you want to find a solution to just about any allocation problem the focus should be the greater regulatory framework not a necessary part of it.

[Mythsaje]

9. Corporate personhood isn't a necessary component of that...

They could be afforded LIMITED rights, but not the same rights as a human being.

[Telly Savalas]

12. What rights does a corporation have beyond the aggregate of the rights

of its shareholders and management?

[Mythsaje]

13. Corporations are treated as artificial persons under the law

which gives them the rights of free speech (apparently giving money to politicians counts as "speech" in this context), free association, protection against search and seizure (which has been used to bolster defenses against US getting to look at the proprietary software of voting machines).

They're not people and shouldn't be afforded the same protections.

[Telly Savalas]

15. The rights you list don't extend beyond the aggregate rights

of the shareholders and management of the corporation.

[Mythsaje]

17. Except that the corporation is considered its own entity

and the corporate officers and shareholders have only a limited liability for the malfeasence of the corporation. Assuming the same rights as a person doesn't give the corporation the same level of responsibility, and the corporate officers and shareholders are offered a level of protection not available to people who aren't connected to corporations.

[lostinacause]

25. Their rights are not the same as a human. There are a number of

differences in the laws and regulations that a corporation faces. Some that are specifically designated in writing while others in implicit based on their size and behavior of a firm. I personally believe that most of the relevant problems can be solved without changing the status. Changing the lobbying laws, for example, would do wonders to improve outcomes. Improving the liability system would also help.

[thingfisher]

10. Corporate rights need to be sharply defined

and rigorously regulated. The political ower that they weild is not healthy for democracy. The whole queston of corporate identity and its ramifications need to be studied and overhauled, although I think they are probably to powerful to be properly reeled in.

[lostinacause]

27. If the changes are made gradually and in an sequential manner

the necessary changes can be made. There needs to be a call to action from academia and policy institutions to get the changes implemented in the most beneficial and achievable way.

[Selatius]

11. The problem is humanity itself

Greed is an affliction of the human mind, not a mindless, soulless corporation. With that said, something must also be said about the influence business people have over the US government. There must be a separation between business and state just as there exists a separation between church and state.

[lostinacause]

28. Greed, perhaps better labeled self interest, is in many ways beneficial for

society. Among other things, it motivates investment, education, and work. All of which are beneficial to the economic wellbeing of society. Self interest is the driving force of every modern economy because of these benefits. The goal should not be to eliminate self interested behavior but rather to harness it. When ever possible incentives need to be provided such private actions are consistent with public welfare.

I disagree with you that there should be separation between business and state. There relationship should not be as close as it is, but at the same time businesses have a significant amount of information about their processes. This information cannot be obtained at a reasonable cost without consultation between businesses and government officials. Also, the wellbeing of businesses is connected to the welfare of the general public. The employees, shareholders and lenders (through money market funds) are affected negatively when policies that affect businesses are implement. When certain types of regulation are placed on businesses their profits decline and tax revenues fall. Bad policies, even with the right intentions, will end up hurting society. This is why it is critical to consider the effects of policies on all stakeholders. This necessitates the inclusion of businesses in these decisions.

[Selatius]

29. I believe there should be a separation between the two

I did not argue for a state that is blind to how the markets work. Of course if you are going to regulate a market, you should have people who are informed as to how that market operates in order to better regulate that. Do you honestly think I am advocating putting people into regulatory oversight positions who are unqualified for the job? That's absolute madness. If I had done that, I would end up with Michael Brown's FEMA.

However, at the same time, there must be a strict separation in the form of campaign finance reform and strong restrictions against "conflicts of interest." In a democracy, the notion of one person, one vote is paramount. That's not the case if the measure of one's ability to win is measured in the size of one's wallet and one's power to be heard is also measured in the size of one's wallet.

[lostinacause]

32. It sounds as though our views are not to far off, at least in principle.

[rman]

36. Greed is not the same thing as self-interest

Self-interest is only natural,
for the greedy however, there's no such thing as enough. Thus the greed of a few goes at the expense of the many.

[lostinacause]

40. Greed is just one form of self interest, perhaps self interest taken to an extreme.

For example there are a number of people who make a ridiculously large amount of money but end up donating a sizable proportion of it to charities.

[rman]

42. Then greed is not "perhaps better labeled self interest"

That's like saying a bonfire is perhaps better labeled inferno.

[lostinacause]

43. Sorry it appears I did not articulate myself sufficiently well.

Because of the subjective nature of greed it is nearly impossible to legislate against. Even if there was a definition we could all agree on it would depend on the preferences of the individual in question. Therefore from a policy standpoint fighting greed is problematic. If we label greed self interest we have something that we can work with because we don't inherently consider the preferences of the individual. It makes it easier to analyze the problem. From this point we can look at how all people, not just people with wealth, interact in society and the consequences of their actions. Obviously when we look at allocative equality we must consider the institutions (such as a graduated tax rate) and the incentives that they create for the wealthy. At the same time we must examine the incentives that are placed on the typical person.

[rman]

26. Indeed, it's the incentives, regulations and rights

(all interconnected) that's the problem. Which is kind of the point of the OP.

Increasingly over the past 100 years or so corporations have been relieved from the burden of regulations, thus gaining more rights, thus gaining incentives to do whatever it takes to increase profits. Corporations no longer have much incentive to do what's good for society.

Corporate personhood is a core issue in this.

[lostinacause]

34. I disagre about the notion of the burden of regulation. If you look at

pollution laws for example the emission requirements have been becoming increasingly stringent. Sure these do not have some of the stringent controls that were in place; but, at the same time, through incentive based regulations the emissions requirement on firms has increased.

[rman]

35. The Bush admins most recent emission regulation solved that problem.

If you compare the regulations that were in place a century ago with todays regulations, it is all to apparent that corporations have to a large extent been relieved from that burden:

# A charter was granted for a limited time.
# Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest-- profit for shareholders was the means to that end.
# Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
# Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.
# Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.
# Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence
legislation.
# A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose.

from "Corporate History Primer" at
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/primers.html

[lostinacause]

37. My guess is that common sense will come back to emission regulations.

In regard to the rest what you really should have said "compared to 100 years ago..."

[rman]

38. So you agree that over all regulations on corporations have decreased?

[lostinacause]

44. Perhaps 100 years ago the wording of the regulations could be

made to be stronger then they are today. But the effective degree of influence that government has over the operations of the economy has increased over time.

[lostinacause]

45. I should add that debate on the degree of regulation is largely trivial.

We should be more concerned with the results of the regulation on society.

[rman]

46. I'd say the degree of influence of corporations over government has increased

So if subsequently the government has increased influence over corporations, we have in effect corporations regulating corporations. Just what they want; they call it "self-regulation" (rings a bell does it?).

In practice it means that various industry oversight commissions are staffed with people from those same industries. That's beside "revolving door politics"; businessmen going in politics and returning to the corporate world after their political career, so that they can benefit from the regulations and deregulation they helped create as politicians.

This is beyond 'the fox guarding the hen-house' - the foxes are having a damn party inside the hen-house.


Besides, the old regulations are more than just stronger wording, for instance:

"Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation."

"A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose."

How's that merely a matter of stronger wording compared to today's regulations?

[Canuckistanian]

14. Externalities - the bastard children of corporations

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

externality is a cost or benefit from an economic transaction that parties "external" to the transaction bear. Externalities can be either positive, when an external benefit is generated, or negative, when an external cost is imposed upon others.

What does that mean? Well, an externality is an unintended "byproduct" of a corporate action. And despite the definition, externalities are rarely positive. Call it pollution, outsourcing, consumer non-responsiveness or excessive trademark litigation.

Either way, the corporation, as a concept, has exceeded it's usefulness to society. It exists solely for providing a profit to the very few.

The corporation cannot be sued for slander, assault, murder or trespass. On occasion, it can be prosecuted for negligence, but it's resources for defending itself are legendary. The plaintiff had better have an ironclad case or a judge will dismiss such a case before it has a chance. This is why "Class action suits" became so popular and so hated by the corporations themselves. And soon to be banned by the Bush clan.

Externalities, one might say, are now a part of the corporate culture. Dealing with them, denying them, fighting them, mitigating them. Can you name a corporation without a crack legal team or a slick PR department?

They have one job and it's a very important one.

To keep that money rolling in, unimpeded.

[Mythsaje]

16. That's a great addition to the thread...

Thank you so much.

[Canuckistanian]

19. Thanks. It's what I've learned from the movie "The Corporation"

Did you know that watching "The Corporation" is required study for students of Business Administration at the University of Waterloo here in Canada?

I think it's a part of their Ethics Studies.

[bicentennial_baby]

47. We watched it in Microecon here

Although, I had already seen it many times....still cool to have it in class :)

[WVHillbilly]

20. Corporations have more power than they ever have had in history

Corp. power needs to be closely looked at, but I would want to totally abolish corporate personhood, just yet.

First, corporations have many, but not all of the rights of natural people. The idea of a ficticous corporate person is useful, but not absolute and there are many areas where the law treats corporations differently than natural persons. It is quite possible there should be more.

Corporations do perform many valuable services and functions, limited liability being one of them. Limited liability encourages growth. Growth, like most things is both good and bad. The trick is to try to encourage enough growth to maintain or improve everyones standard of living while minimizing the harm cause, i.e sustainable growth.

Corporations can be sued for liable and slander. Corporations can be guilty of crimes. For many good reasons this area of law is very complicated, and is difficult to discuss in a vacuum.

Is there something is particular that should be addressed? Campaign contributions?

[Canuckistanian]

21. Campaign contributions are HUGE

As I heard on the Ed Schulz show a while ago... Imagine if someone showed up on your doorstep and offered you $10,000. For nothing.

Wouldn't you feel obligated to help them, despite your promises to remain neutral in a business proposal?

Of course you would.

And all too often, Senators, Congressmen (and women) ACT on those not-so-subtle "donations".

[lostinacause]

24. Externalities are usually used in reference to legal activities.

You have either implied or outright said that all of the problems with corporations have to do with illegal activities. If that is the case perhaps it would be beneficial to examine those activities.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. What An Awesome And Unexpected Post! Absolutely Refreshing Change Of Pace!

Great job and fully agreed!

:toast:

[Mythsaje]

22. Glad you like it! n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

23. I'm a person

K & R :toast:

[TahitiNut]

30. Begin by forbidding corporations to own corporations.

The Campaign Finance laws already restrict "speech" (in the form of dollars) to natural humans ... let's keep going.

Corporations are property and the sale/exchange of property should be subject to sales taxes uniformly ... so tax the sale/exchange of corporate stock!

[lostinacause]

31. Businesses are typically exempt from paying sales tax.

This is actually a good thing. If corporations and small businesses had to pay income taxes it would provide a huge advantage to be companies. Companies would be given a large incentive to vertically integrate (control all aspects of the manufacturing process) making it so it would be even more difficult then it already is to enter industries with economies of scale.

Taxing investments also has negative side effects as investment is typically valued. As far as I know most countries tax capital gains at a lower rate to encourage investment. A percentage tax will also create strange incentives for holding and selling stocks.

[Cetacea]

33. self-delete

wrong spot.

[BlooInBloo]

39. lol! The DU-animals-are-people-wackjobs won't care for that...

... which is to say: you're right.

lolol!

[Uncle Joe]

41. This is tragic, I am sorry for missing this post, too late to recommend!

I believe you hit a million nails on their heads! Thanks for posting Mythsaje.:patriot: