Corporations and Their Rights As People.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's funny really. The same argument this attorney uses against corporations, fits right in line with unions as well. The perfect argument he makes is:

""""Therefore when those people come together to create a corporation, the collection of people should be able to exercise those same constitutional rights. That's not logical, though, because these groups of people are not speaking with one mind.""""

Many might argue that unions are working together for a common cause, but then the counter-argument to that is corporations are doing the same thing. Not all individuals in a union think/want the same things. It's why you see votes of 55%-45% to approve a new union contract, etc. So the idea that Unions are somehow superior and should be afforded a 'group' right and a corporation should not, is abusrd on its face as well.

-------------

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/13/corporate_personhood

In an instant-classic flub at the Iowa State Fair this week, Mitt Romney proclaimed, "corporations are people, my friend."

Romney, of course, was speaking in the context of tax policy, making the point that to raise taxes on corporations is to raise taxes on the owners -- people -- of that corporation.

But his statement unintentionally hit at another, underexamined fact of American life: Corporations are people. That's at least in the opinion of the Supreme Court when it comes to certain legal issues. This is the doctrine known as "corporate personhood" that came into play in the Citizens United case in 2010 that gutted some important corporate campaign finance restrictions.

To learn more about the issue, I spoke with David Cobb, an attorney and the 2004 Green Party candidate for president. Cobb is now a spokesperson for Move to Amend, a coalition that advocates amending the Constitution to end the doctrine of corporate personhood.

Mitt Romney said "corporations are people." Is he right?

Well, he's correct in the sense that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that corporations are persons with inherent constitutional rights. Of course, he's wrong just as the court is wrong.

Where did this legal doctrine come from?

Legal personhood means that you can claim and assert constitutional rights. Remember that the Constitution does not create rights, it recognizes inherent, inalienable rights. That means if a legislative decision -- whether at the state, local or federal level -- infringes upon your rights, like the right to free speech or assembly, the government's action is illegitimate and you as an individual should be able to go into court and argue that this law is an illegitimate exercise of governmental power.

The court has said in most instances now corporations should be treated as persons with constitutional rights. So now local, state and even federal laws that are attempting to control corporate harm and abuse can actually be challenged in court, and often are. Many laws have been overturned, including environmental protection laws, worker safety laws, and laws protecting consumers. In a nutshell, when a corporation can claim it is a person with constitutional rights, it means their lawyers can go into court and overturn democratically enacted laws.

Was there a single case in which this idea was established?

The first time it was discussed was in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railway in 1886; there have been a slew of other cases since then. The doctrine of corporate personhood really started to gain traction in the late 1970s, and the current court is exacerbating it even more. The basic argument the court has made is that corporations are just composed of people who have individual human rights. Therefore when those people come together to create a corporation, the collection of people should be able to exercise those same constitutional rights. That's not logical, though, because these groups of people are not speaking with one mind. And they have not created an inherent human being whenever they come together collectively.

What are some recent examples of this idea coming into effect in the courts?

Most recently -- and I would say most egregiously -- the decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned the McCain-Feingold law, which was an attempt to protect the integrity of our elections. The McCain-Feingold law was very anemic to begin with, but the court said the law was treating wealthy people and corporations as an "oppressed minority" and therefore overturned a democratically enacted law. The case was decided on free speech grounds.

Another one is Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee from 1933, where the court overturned a law attempting to favor local merchants over chain stores. The law provided for a different tax structure for local, independently owned businesses versus corporate franchise businesses. The court overturned that, arguing that the law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Are there any constitutional rights that are not afforded to corporations?

A corporation has not yet been able to cast a ballot. But I would argue they do not need to cast a ballot when they control the political expenditures to the extent that they drown out the voice of ordinary people.

Your organization wants a constitutional amendment on corporations. What would it do exactly?

It would entrench that money is not speech, and that only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights. It would allow local, state and federal government to pass any number of laws. It's saying that we would be able to engage in a proper political debate about the role of not only corporations but also how our society operates. For example, we could theoretically prohibit all political activity by corporations, including lobbying and donations. These activities are currently legal because corporate personhood protects them under the First Amendment. Also we could prevent corporate mergers.

We could return to environmental and health regulations that once allowed regulators to have surprise inspections on corporate polluters; but that was overturned because the court claimed it violated the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. That's especially egregious because just as individual human 5th Amendment protections have been eroded, Fifth Amendment protections for corporations have actually been expanded. Another thing that could happen is we could start talking about revoking corporate charters by popular referendum if there is a history of violations of environmental and health and safety laws. You could stop advertising for tobacco, guns, and other dangerous products. Right now corporations can claim that their First Amendment rights are protected. Corporate personhood is not just a case or a decision, it's a bedrock legal doctrine.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Seems appropriate under the circumstances.

My link

Why Corporations Are Not People,

And The Unsavory Consequences

of Pretending That They Are

by Mike Hoy

A Challenge to “Libertarians”

Libertarianism is a philosophy based on individual rights. It recognizes that the individual is the fundamental unit of society, and that society is better off if individual people can act in their own benefit. Laissez faire economics (literally “hands off” – meaning the government) is derived from individual rights. Free individuals making whatever voluntary exchanges they want with each other will result in a free and prosperous society. Individual freedom is the basis of the United States of America. It is what our “Founding Fathers” risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, to create.

Libertarianism is a philosophy based on individual rights.

But what happens if groups of people, i.e., collectivist entities, form together for the purpose of getting the government to grant unearned special privileges to them? How will this affect the marketplace? Well, this has actually happened in America, and the result is that these collectivist entities with their government-bestowed privileges have taken over our economy, in some particular cases to the benefit of some particular individuals, but to the overall detriment to individuals in general. These collectivist entities are known as “corporations,” and it is initially puzzling as to why they are lionized by “Libertarians,” who proclaim themselves the defenders of individual rights.

By deliberately obscuring the boundaries between individuals and corporations, “Libertarians” have caused themselves to treat corporations as if they were individuals, thereby assisting in the corporate takeover of America, and the McDonaldization of practically everything and practically everyplace, all over the globe – “Globalization.”

Plainly put, corporations are anti-American. They are anti-individual. The word “corporation” does not appear in our Constitution.

Plainly put, corporations are anti-American. They are anti-individual. The word “corporation” does not appear in our Constitution. Large institutions of all kinds (both government and business) were suspect in colonial and early America. In fact, the Boston Tea Party was not a protest against taxes, but direct action taken against the East India Company, which represented the commercial interests of the British elite.

It was not until 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were “persons” and entitled to the same rights (actually more) granted to individual people under the Bill of Rights. This sinister ruling, discussed by Thom Hartmann in his 2002 book Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and The Theft of Human Rights (Rodale Press) has led to the corporate dominance of the individual – a thoroughly un-American state of affairs. As Hartmann points out, the largest transnational corporations fill a role today that has historically been filled by kings. They control most of the world's wealth and exert power over the lives of most of the world's citizens. And they pretty much own the U.S. government: the revolving door between corporate boardrooms and the top echelons of all recent administrations is no secret.

Why are “Libertarians,” self-styled promoters of individual rights and interests, such mindless boosters of corporations?

But why, then, are “Libertarians,” self-styled promoters of individual rights and interests, such mindless boosters of corporations? Why in the world do “Libertarians” vehemently insist that corporations are market entities, when even a cursory examination of the matter reveals that they are actually government entities?

I'll say it again: corporations are not market entities – they are government entities. This was proven by the libertarian/objectivist Robert Hessen in his 1979 book, ironically titled In Defense of The Corporation (Hoover Institution). This is a very funny book, because he states in his prologue: “In this book, the belief that corporations require government permission to exist and that they are the recipients of special privileges will be challenged. I will present an alternative known as the 'inherence theory': i.e., corporations are created and sustained entirely by exercise of individual rights, specifically freedom of association and freedom of contract.”

Now, the essential distinguishing characteristic of the corporate form of enterprise is limited liability for torts. If Hessen (or anybody else) is going to show that corporations are contractual entities, he is going to have to demonstrate that limited liability for torts can be fully accounted for as resulting from voluntary agreements between consenting individuals. Here is where Hessen then proves the exact opposite of what he said he was going to prove. He openly admits that limited liability for torts cannot be a part of the market order! He says:

“Thus far, the inherence theory – the idea that corporate features are created by contract – has been applied to entity status, perpetual duration, and limited liability for debts. But how can limited liability for torts be explained by a contractual theory, since tort victims do not consent to limit their claims to the assets of the corporation? Surely, limited liability for torts would seem to be a state-created privilege.…

“How, if at all, can limited liability for torts be integrated into a contractual theory of corporations? The answer is that it can't… either limited liability for torts is a state-created privilege or it is contractual (which it obviously is not).”

So there, by the time the guy is only on page 19, he has already admitted that he cannot do what he said he was going to do: show that corporations are the result of voluntary agreements between individuals. He then adds: “Regardless of one's view about limited liability for torts, the whole issue is irrelevant to giant corporations, which either carry substantial liability insurance or possess sizable net assets from which claims can be paid.” (You know, like Enron.)

So after admitting in the first 19 pages In Defense of The Corporation that the essential distinguishing characteristic of corporations (limited liability for torts) cannot result from market forces, he then red herrings away for another 120 pages or so, mostly bashing Ralph Nader (big deal). This book was praised by such libertarian/objectivist luminaries as F.A. Hayek, David Kelley and D.T. Armentano. It is not some obscure lunatic fringe screed that nobody ever heard of. Those are some libertarian heavy hitters there.

Managers of corporations have more in common, as a class, with government bureaucrats than they do with individual entrepreneurs.

I wonder how many rank-and-file “Libertarians” are aware of this. Reading “Libertarian” propaganda indicates either that they are unaware of the statist nature of corporations, or are deliberately avoiding the issue. They always write as if corporations are the same as individuals. In fact, because of the separation of “ownership” and control, managers of corporations have more in common, as a class, with government bureaucrats than they do with individuals.

The corporate form of enterprise encourages short-term thinking. Instead of thinking how to preserve and maximize the benefits of the assets under their control for, say, the next thirty years, the corporate manager is concerned with beefing up the bookkeeping profits on a quarterly basis - just look at how many giant corporations in the last few years have had to “readjust” past “earnings,” and take “charges” against current “earnings” for manipulative accounting.

In their book Natural Resources: Bureaucratic Myths and Environmental Management (Pacific Institute, 1983), libertarians Richard L. Stroup and John Baden state: “The appropriate focus in analyzing public sector behavior is the individual decision maker. It is the individual bureaucrat, the professional public servant, who makes most of the decisions about governmental operations.”… “Salary, position in the bureaucracy, amount of discretionary budget control, workplace amenities, and office perquisites all contribute to the bureaucrat's well-being. If an agency is expanding its budget and authority, these components of the bureaucrat's welfare improve also. On the other hand, a decrease in the agency's size and budget are generally accompanied by fewer benefits to the bureaucrat. Thus, bureaucrats face strong incentives to increase their agencies' authority and areas of responsibility.”

Exactly. Very well put. That is why governments are so inefficient, and why the bigger the government, the more inefficient it is. Excellent point, libertarians.

But these highly educated libertarians fail to point out that exactly the same thing is true of corporate managers – and that if “the appropriate focus in analyzing public sector behavior is the individual decision maker,” then the appropriate focus in analyzing corporate behavior is the individual corporate bureaucrat – and he, like his government counterpart, faces strong incentives to thinking the short run.

Stroup and Baden say, “Unconstrained by the need to generate profits, bureaucrats may ignore or exaggerate the economic efficiency of the projects they administer.” True, but so is this: Constrained by the need to generate the appearance of profits every quarter, corporate bureaucrats may ignore or exaggerate the economic efficiency of the projects they administer. Precisely because they are entities which literally cannot exist without a special privilege granted by the government, virtually any criticism “Libertarians” make of government, could also be made of corporations – but “Libertarians” do not do this. Why?

“Libertarians” stick the “Market” label on corporations and then respond to the label as if it were the thing.

Well, “Libertarians” are obsessed with labels. The thing that distinguishes “Libertarian” analysis is their State/Market dichotomy. All the major “Libertarian” propaganda outlets are non-profit organizations. That is, they have gone to the government and asked to be exempt from the forces of the marketplace. You would think that a bunch of people who according to themselves understand economics and the marketplace better than anyone else on Earth would be able to manage to, say, publish a newsletter without losing money, but the “Libertarians” won't even have a go at it.

Since “Libertarians” avoid the marketplace like the plague, how, then, are they to be “for” the “Market” and “against” the “Government?” Answer: they sit on the sidelines and root for the “Market,” like fans rooting for a major league baseball team. Since the actual marketplace (food co-ops, mom & pop groceries, auto repair shops, etc.) isn't very glamorous, (you hardly ever see it on TV) “Libertarians” stick the “Market” label on prominent non-market entities (corporations) and then respond to the label as if it were the thing.

Thus, we see “Libertarians” rooting for corporations, and that is how they reconcile their State/Market dichotomy with reality. But, as Robert Hessen demonstrated in In Defense of The Corporation, corporations actually belong on the government side of that dichotomy. “Libertarian” followers have been taught numerous thought-stopping techniques by “Libertarian” leaders, so that anyone who attempts to discuss the non-market reality of corporations is slapped with a negative label (“anti-corporate,” “anti-trade,” etc. - there are lots), and then any questions raised by that person are literally unthinkable to “Libertarians.”

“Libertarian” leaders use an intellectual sleight-of-hand to get “Libertarian” followers to cheer for corporations. They present their pro-corporate (i.e., pro-government entity) blather as if they are talking about individuals. Let's look at a real-world example. Here is a blurb for the book Why Globalization Works by Martin Wolf from the Laissez Faire book catalog: “The foes of international buying and selling don't like to admit that if it's bad for a New York grocer to trade with a Timbuktu grocer, it's also bad for the New Yorker to trade with a New Jerseyite. Or that the end-of-the-line of such anti-market logic requires you to survive on what you can grow in your backyard, without ever trading your turnips for your neighbor's corn.”

Notice the use of thought-stopping labels (“foes of … buying and selling,” “anti-market”), and the false assumption that what is going on with “Globalization” is “a New York grocer” “trading with” “a Timbuktu grocer.” No particular person who allegedly holds these views is named. It is implied that everyone who questions whether “Globalization” is actually a good thing is such a dirty rotten busybody that he would try to stop you from “trading your turnips for your neighbor's corn.”

Now, I have read some books questioning “Globalization,” and I cannot recall a single author who is opposed to an individual in “New York” trading with any individual anywhere else. Since the questioners of “Globalization” have never made any statement even resembling this, why do “Libertarians” pull the wool over their own eyes and pretend that anyone who doesn't swallow “Globalization” as willingly as they do is against individuals trading with individuals?

As far as I can figure out, it is because they have been trained to insert the State/Market dichotomy into their minds as their fundamental grid for perceiving reality. All incoming signals from the outside universe must be filtered through the State/Market dichotomy, and the State/Market dichotomy of the “Libertarians” has been doctored so that corporations are on the “Market” side, when even prominent libertarians have confessed that they belong on the “State” side.

The recently released book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: The Inside Story of How America Built an Empire on Third-World Debt, by John Perkins, reveals what “Globalization” is really all about - and it ain't “a New York grocer” “trading” with another individual. The publisher's blurb for the book states that for years John Perkins “worked for an international consulting firm where his job was to convince underdeveloped countries to accept enormous loans, much larger than what was really needed, for infrastructure development – and to make sure that the development projects were then contracted to U.S. multinationals. Once these countries were saddled with huge debts, the American government and the international aid agencies allied with it were able, by dictating repayment terms, to essentially control their economies.” Gee, I don't see where “a New York grocer” figures into it, do you?

Contrary to “Libertarian”-spewed horseshit, “Globalization” is not Joe Doakes, New York grocer trading his turnips for the corm of Sam Smith, Timbuktu grocer.

And speaking of “the American government and the international aid agencies allied with it,” (emphasis mine), Martin Wolf, author of Why Globalization Works is described as “a former senior economist at the World Bank.” Contrary to “Libertarian”-spewed horseshit, “Globalization” is not Joe Doakes, “New York grocer” trading his turnips for the corn of Sam Smith, “Timbuktu grocer.”

It takes some heavy-duty thought-stopping and unending label-slapping to pretend that it is. If the “Libertarians” are so right about “Globalization,” and other people are so wrong, then why do “Libertarians” find it necessary to deliberately misrepresent opposing views? Why can't they deal with something somebody actually said, instead of pretending that anyone who questions their corporatation-promoting is against individual trade? And why are the “Libertarian” rank-and-file so eager to choke these falsehoods down?

It is long past time that “Libertarians” wake up and admit that corporations are not individual people, and that there is nothing in libertarianism that calls for pretending that they are, let alone preferring them over individuals.

So, what is to be done? Damned if I know. I don't have any platform or program, except to honestly admit that corporations are not people, and that it is as insane to pretend they are as it is to pretend that a coat hanger is a vacuum cleaner. It is “Libertarians,” the self-styled defenders of individual rights who ought to be taking the lead in formulating “what is to be done.”

Most of the books pointing out the just plain wrongness of pretending that corporations are “persons” are written by people who are considered to be on the “Left” politically. And their “solutions” to corporate dominance of the individual are so naïve as to be almost frightening - they seem to honestly believe that somehow “government” (the same government that is owned by corporations) can pass laws that will restore corporations to whatever proper place they might have in a society based on individual rights. They seem to be blissfully(?) unaware of what the Marxist-oriented writer Gabriel Kolko demonstrated in his 1967 book The Triumph of Conservatism: that government regulatory bodies inevitably become controlled by the very industries that they are supposed to be “regulating.”

I maintain that it is up to “Libertarians” to take the lead in questioning the corporate form of enterprise, and come up with "solutions" to restore economic power in America to its rightful practitioners: individual people.

I maintain that it is up to “Libertarians” to take the lead in questioning the corporate form of enterprise, and come up with “solutions” to restore economic power in America to its rightful practitioners: individual people.

So how about it, “Libertarians?”

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

MIKE: Well, once upon a time, I was an accountant working for a CPA firm. It didn't suit me, so I went off on my own trip. Politically, I first became aware in the tenth grade or so, when I was a Goldwater Republican. Then I was into Ayn Rand for a while, before settling on anarcho-libertarianism. Actually, I am a political solipsist, the anarchists have too many rules for me, and as for the Libertarians, what a bunch of uptight corporate-sucking wimps they are -- yech!

http://www.endervidualism.com/salon/intvw/hoy.htm

What a douche bag!

solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism

Edited August 13, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

What a douche bag!

solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism

Wow, attack the messenger and not the message. The truth hurts doesn't it?

Edited August 13, 2011 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wow, attack the messenger and not the message. The truth hurts doesn't it?

What message? You have to convey a set of clear ideas logically to have a message. Last I heard, circular logic is meaningless.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

What message? You have to convey a set of clear ideas logically to have a message. Last I heard, circular logic is meaningless.

As is self-delusion.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As is self-delusion.

The very definition of a self-proclaimed "political solipsist".

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Cue the 'thought-stopping' innuendos!

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

The very definition of a self-proclaimed "political solipsist".

Yes, but his criticism of the hypocrisy of the libertarian movement is valid.

Cue the 'thought-stopping' innuendos!

Joe the Plumber says it's the right thing to do.

Edited August 13, 2011 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes, but his criticism of the hypocrisy of the libertarian movement is valid.

Libertarians are not hypocritical. They are just a little confused.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Libertarians are not hypocritical. They are just a little confused.

With statement like that you should be running for Office. :rofl:

CONFUSED??? Vote for me and I promise you something or other, I'm not sure what.

I'm Some Old Guy and I approve this message.

[TBoneTX 45,303]

Vote for me and I promise you something or other, I'm not sure what.

Forgive the all-caps, plea man:

A BUSLOAD OF ARKANSAS POLITICIANS WAS DRIVING DOWN A COUNTRY ROAD WHEN SUDDENLY THE BUS RAN OFF THE ROAD AND CRASHED INTO A TREE IN AN OLD FARMER'S FIELD. THE OLD FARMER, SEEING WHAT HAPPENED, WENT OVER TO INVESTIGATE. HE THEN PROCEEDED TO DIG A HOLE AND BURY THE POLITICIANS.

LATER THAT DAY, THE LOCAL SHERIFF CAME OUT, SAW THE CRASHED BUS, AND ASKED THE OLD FARMER, "WERE THEY ALL DEAD?"

THE FARMER REPLIED, "WELL, SOME OF THEM SAID THEY WASN'T, BUT YOU KNOW HOW THEM POLITICIANS LIE."

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

Forgive the all-caps, plea man:

A BUSLOAD OF ARKANSAS POLITICIANS WAS DRIVING DOWN A COUNTRY ROAD WHEN SUDDENLY THE BUS RAN OFF THE ROAD AND CRASHED INTO A TREE IN AN OLD FARMER'S FIELD. THE OLD FARMER, SEEING WHAT HAPPENED, WENT OVER TO INVESTIGATE. HE THEN PROCEEDED TO DIG A HOLE AND BURY THE POLITICIANS.

LATER THAT DAY, THE LOCAL SHERIFF CAME OUT, SAW THE CRASHED BUS, AND ASKED THE OLD FARMER, "WERE THEY ALL DEAD?"

THE FARMER REPLIED, "WELL, SOME OF THEM SAID THEY WASN'T, BUT YOU KNOW HOW THEM POLITICIANS LIE."