The Separation of Corporation and State

[Revoltingest]

I support outlawing lobbiests. That would help break the link between corporation and state.

How would people associate to express a common message? Could no one meet with legislators?
(I'm thinking of groups I'm in...Rails To Trails, NRA, Cato Institute, etc.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I support outlawing lobbiests. That would help break the link between corporation and state.

Corporations are creations of the state. As long as corporations exist, there will always be a link.

 

[doppelganger]

I predict in the distant future, humanity will look back on the last century and the next few decades to come as the time when we made the horrible mistake of creating the legal fiction that group identities, like corporations and special interest groups, are "persons." They aren't. And we are paying for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I predict in the distant future, humanity will look back on the last century and the next few decades to come as the tiem when we made the horrible mistake of creating the legal fiction that group identities, like corporations and special interest groups, are "persons." They aren't. And we are paying for it.

Were we to take away 'personhood' aspects of corporation (eg, their ability to sign contracts, sue & defend themselves in court....& government's ability
to prosecute them for crimes & levy income taxes), there would be unintended consequences which could make it far more difficult to conduct business,
particularly on a large scale. What effect on our economy would this have if we became even less competitive on the world stage?
Moreover, if the corporate form of ownership were so discouraged, people would have to rely more upon partnerships & sole proprietorships, which are
inherently riskier because of unlimited liability. Venture capital would be harder to get & more expensive. This would be a disincentive for more daring
entrepreneurial ventures.

 

[idea]

separation of corporation and state

I think it would be a good idea - to not bail out any corporations with tax $, preferentially treat some corporations over others, tax breaks to some, not to to others etc. etc.

imo all corporations should be treated equally by the gov. - taxed equally, punished for crimes equally, etc. etc. Let the corporations fail or succeed based on their products and their service to the public, not on gov handouts.

 

[Willamena]

Just a thought: there are two sides to church-state separation. It's not just a matter of barring religion from interfering with government; it's also a matter of protecting individuals' personal religious freedom.

Would something like this be part of corporate-state separation? Does it imply that the government shouldn't interfere in individuals' commerce, maybe?

Only to the extent that they are given the power to govern individuals. Currently, they are not: they serve the public. 'Personal rights' are not what is guaranteed in our Constitutions, though that is a valid interpretation of the guarantee --interpretation is necessary when we turn the picture around to answer the question, "What's in it for me?" The Constitution in fact guarantees rights for all (citizens, residents, groupings of the public).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I predict in the distant future, humanity will look back on the last century and the next few decades to come as the time when we made the horrible mistake of creating the legal fiction that group identities, like corporations and special interest groups, are "persons." They aren't. And we are paying for it.

I almost wish that the idea that corporations are "persons" was carried to its logical extreme: when a corporation can be sentenced to prison or be drafted into the military, I think we might see shareholders themselves crying for some other arrangement.

If corporations really were full "people" under the law, I think we'd find that many more corporations would be charged with things like negligence or reckless endangerment. The fact that this doesn't happen just goes to show that we don't actually hold corporations to the same standards that we do actual people.

Also, if a corporation is a person, every person who owns a share or a unit of a mutual fund is a slave owner. In the US at least, the 13th Amendment forbids ownership of people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I almost wish that the idea that corporations are "persons" was carried to its logical extreme: when a corporation can be sentenced to prison or be drafted into the military, I think we might see shareholders themselves crying for some other arrangement.
If corporations really were full "people" under the law, I think we'd find that many more corporations would be charged with things like negligence or reckless endangerment. The fact that this doesn't happen just goes to show that we don't actually hold corporations to the same standards that we do actual people.
Also, if a corporation is a person, every person who owns a share or a unit of a mutual fund is a slave owner. In the US at least, the 13th Amendment forbids ownership of people.

The concept of a corporation being a person is limited to equivalence only for certain functions.
To treat them as one extreme or the other, ie, no rights/obligations vs full rights/obligations (eg, marriage, draft) would be dysfunctional.
Think of a corporation as a group of people coming together to pool their resources for a common venture, the failure of which wouldn't destroy
every individual. Where the group acts as a single entity, it makes sense to treat them as a person for functions such as signing contracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

 

[doppelganger]

Except the law doesn't limit it to that, despite what Wiki says. I speak as one who is specifically a skilled professional on the subject.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except the law doesn't limit it to that, despite what Wiki says. I speak as one who is specifically a skilled professional on the subject.

Could you elaborate on how Wikipedia's article is wrong & why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The concept of a corporation being a person is limited to equivalence only for certain functions.
To treat them as one extreme or the other, ie, no rights/obligations vs full rights/obligations (eg, marriage, draft) would be dysfunctional.

But that's what's going on in the US, isn't it?

My understanding was that the recent striking down of restrictions on corporate political donations was that it infringed the right of the corporate "person" to exercise its First Amendment rights. Isn't this based on the idea that a corporation is fully a person?

Think of a corporation as a group of people coming together to pool their resources for a common venture, the failure of which wouldn't destroy
every individual. Where the group acts as a single entity, it makes sense to treat them as a person for functions such as signing contracts.
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand the idea of limited liability of shareholder, and I understand the value in allowing corporations to enter agreements. What I don't understand is why "legal entity that can enter into agreements" necessarily implies "person".

Except the law doesn't limit it to that, despite what Wiki says. I speak as one who is specifically a skilled professional on the subject.

Do you think the idea that corporate "personhood" implies that corporate ownership is "slavery" has any legal traction?

 

[doppelganger]

Do you think the idea that corporate "personhood" implies that corporate ownership is "slavery" has any legal traction?

No. Because "personhood" is only being used to extend additional rights and not to impose any of the responsibilities that go with personhood for actual persons. It's a one way affair, legally speaking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Because "personhood" is only being used to extend additional rights and not to impose any of the responsibilities that go with personhood for actual persons. It's a one way affair, legally speaking.

How can that work? Don't the corporation's rights of "personhood" imply responsibilities for everyone else?

The government found itself barred from restricting political donations from corporations on the grounds that it violated the "person's" First Amendment rights. How can one "person" have rights under the First Amendment but not the Thirteenth?

 

[doppelganger]

How can that work? Don't the corporation's rights of "personhood" imply responsibilities for everyone else?

The government found itself barred from restricting political donations from corporations on the grounds that it violated the "person's" First Amendment rights. How can one "person" have rights under the First Amendment but not the Thirteenth?

Simple. All those Supreme Court justices are appointed by one or the other of our two political parties. Go to opensecrets.org and look at the lists of the top soft money sources for the two parties. It's no mystery why our representative democracy is in a shambles - the judiciary has no intellectual independence at all from the corrupt political system.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Simple. All those Supreme Court justices are appointed by one or the other of our two political parties. Go to opensecrets.org and look at the lists of the top soft money sources for the two parties. It's no mystery why our representative democracy is in a shambles - the judiciary has no intellectual independence at all from the corrupt political system.

Well whoever came up with the idea that corporations are people and money is speech is an evil genius.

 

[Revoltingest]

But that's what's going on in the US, isn't it?

No...that's just histrionics & rhetoric from protesters & the media.

My understanding was that the recent striking down of restrictions on corporate political donations was that it infringed the right of the corporate "person" to exercise its First Amendment rights. Isn't this based on the idea that a corporation is fully a person?

That is one aspect of being a "person", one which I favor because corporations are a group of people coming together with common
interests & goals. Consider things corporations cannot do, eg, marry, adopt children, make wills, vote for prez/gov/senator/etc.
These things are done solely by the persons who own the corporation. But some things pass thru from the individual to the group,
eg, speaking with one voice about corporate matters.

I understand the idea of limited liability of shareholder, and I understand the value in allowing corporations to enter agreements. What I don't understand is why "legal entity that can enter into agreements" necessarily implies "person".

Because those things are something a person could do. When there is talk of corporations as a person, it is in a limited sense.

Do you think the idea that corporate "personhood" implies that corporate ownership is "slavery" has any legal traction?

That is utterly bonkers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well whoever came up with the idea that corporations are people and money is speech is an evil genius.

You don't really believe that, do you?
I've dealt with personhood, but speech is of little or no value without money to provide the venue for others to hear it.
Campaign finance reform has already been used to silence opponents using money & regulatory limitations, eg.....
http://www.ij.org/about/3872
http://makenolaw.org/rfrommer/59-bloggers-beware-the-campaign-finance-laws-are-coming-for-you

 

[fenrisx]

The principle of separation of church and state has ensured that our Western governments remain unbiased towards any particular religion. It has also protected us, for the most part, the domination of church over government. Do we now require similar protection from the corporate world?

Is the separation of corporation and state a necessary thing in today's world? Why or why not?

awesome idea, and no I have never been a member of the communist party so deal with it

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The concept of a corporation being a person is limited to equivalence only for certain functions.
To treat them as one extreme or the other, ie, no rights/obligations vs full rights/obligations (eg, marriage, draft) would be dysfunctional.
Think of a corporation as a group of people coming together to pool their resources for a common venture, the failure of which wouldn't destroy
every individual. Where the group acts as a single entity, it makes sense to treat them as a person for functions such as signing contracts.
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No...that's just histrionics & rhetoric from protesters & the media.


That is one aspect of being a "person", one which I favor because corporations are a group of people coming together with common
interests & goals. Consider things corporations cannot do, eg, marry, adopt children, make wills, vote for prez/gov/senator/etc.
These things are done solely by the persons who own the corporation. But some things pass thru from the individual to the group,
eg, speaking with one voice about corporate matters.

Because those things are something a person could do. When there is talk of corporations as a person, it is in a limited sense.

That is utterly bonkers.

You are incorrect. A workers' union is more of what you have described. But for the people in the union, we already have "one person, one vote". Union donations, even though voted upon by the entire collection of members, is less than 10% of corporate donations to politicians. While a corporation's donations are at the whim of the CEO, or at best the small group of like-minded (and salaried) board members. The 20 or 20,000 workers that actually make up the corporation have no say at all in the donations.
BTW...corporations CAN "marry"(merger), "adopt" (takeover), make "wills" (inheritance), and they most certainly vote with their money (i.e. The CEO/board's discretionary funds).

But I would suggest 2 things for this conversation.
1. Money is NOT free speech.
2. Regulated capitalism is good. So stop slamming the bribing corporations. Instead focus on the elected politicians who take those bribes and act on the wishes of the corporations. Ban lobbyists (all groups). Outlaw all profits from speeches, books (based upon their terms in office), etc...made by politicians during and after their terms in power. Cut their salaries to barely survival levels (or to minimum wage plus whatever healthcare the populus has).
Political office is meant to be the sacrifice made by an individual in order to help the common good of the masses. It was never meant to be a career....and certainly not a profitable one.

 

[Revoltingest]

A workers' union is more of what you have described. But for the people in the union, we already have "one person, one vote". Union donations, even though voted upon by the entire collection of members, is less than 10% of corporate donations to politicians. While a corporation's donations are at the whim of the CEO, or at best the small group of like-minded (and salaried) board members. The 20 or 20,000 workers that actually make up the corporation have no say at all in the donations.

The owners of the corporation are the ones ultimately controlling its actions, even if thru electred directors & hired managers.
If the employees want to be in charge, then they should buy stock, otherwise their relationship is that of providing labor for compensation.
Note: I also favor unions & any other group being able to lobby government.

BTW...corporations CAN "marry"(merger), "adopt" (takeover), make "wills" (inheritance), and they most certainly vote with their money (i.e. The CEO/board's discretionary funds).

That is merely metaphorical. Corporations are neither married nor single, don't adopt children, & don't enter voting booths.

But I would suggest 2 things for this conversation.
1. Money is NOT free speech.

I hear that a lot, but without money to buy a venue, speech is greatly curtailed. So money is entangled with speech.
Why else are political parties amassing great war chests? They buy ads to get their message across to the public.

2. Regulated capitalism is good. So stop slamming the bribing corporations.

Just what do you think I'm advocating?

Instead focus on the elected politicians who take those bribes and act on the wishes of the corporations. Ban lobbyists (all groups). Outlaw all profits from speeches, books (based upon their terms in office), etc...made by politicians during and after their terms in power. Cut their salaries to barely survival levels (or to minimum wage plus whatever healthcare the populus has).
Political office is meant to be the sacrifice made by an individual in order to help the common good of the masses. It was never meant to be a career....and certainly not a profitable one.

Let's just say that I'm not in favor of the high level of regulation you are.
I believe it would lead to even greater censorship, corruption & poor representation.