Leftist opposition to the existence of corporations

[elucidator]

My personal favorite conservative cliché is about how leftys are all fuzzy minded and unrealistic, they need the stern guidance of hard-headed realists. Forgetting, of course, that you will never meet a cynic who doesn’t think of himself as a hard-headed realist.

But the corporation is less a person than a tribe, with its own set of tribal loyalties and priorities. Now, we have corporations founded and nurtured in America who think of themselves as being “global”, which means minor parochial loyalties to a “country” are passé, not to mention irrational and unrealistic.

The individual persons are, of course, just as much a patriot as ever they were, they will pay good money to attend dinners and hear speeches extolling the values of patriotism and strong defense, the very day they sign the papers to move their business offices offshore to avoid taxes.

Calvin Coolidge famously remarked that the business of America is business. Now, they just give us the business.

[gonzomax]

I have no hostility to the concept of corporations ,they are a natural development of the American system. I just believe we should regulate them in order to have them serve the public good. The problem is not wealth but misconduct. There is plenty that corporations do to harm the country from environmental harm to tax evasion. That should not be allowed. it requires strong regulation and political will. Their wealth and power influence every aspect of our system. we should be in charge of corporations. They should not control us. They are capable of doing great harm.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

@gonzomax

They are capable of doing great harm.

What do we do about this? Sure we can sue the corp in theory, but their deep pockets prevent it in fact.

[RickJay]

@Whack-a-Mole

They can get similar protections via laws but they are not people like you or me are people and thus cannot derive their protections directly from the Constitution.

Hence shit like Citizen’s United wouldn’t fly. The SCOTUS would not deem a corporation capable of claiming constitutional protection.

I’m not sure I really understand any of this.

First of all, the First Amendment doesn’t grant “protections” to anyone. It says the government cannot abridge the freedom opf speech. It’s not a “protection,” it’s a restriction. The argument of Citizens United was not that a “Corporation” should be “protected” by the Constitution, but that the plain reading of the First Amendment is that the government cannot do what they did.

(Now, of course, one can question the SC’s decision here based on a lot of considerations. The fact is that the First Amendment has never been an absolute as some would like to believe. I’m not necessarily saying I agree with the decision in the Citizens United case, and of course four of nine SC justices didn’t agree, either, so it’s not like one is in bad company if one disagrees.)

Secondly, EVERYTHING in U.S. law is derived from the Constitution.

Having said all that, the thread has quickly degenerated into the usually bizarre “evil corporations” blather, so will soon draw the ire of the hard core rightists, and so any voice of moderate reason’s going to be ignored now.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, just going down the Bill of Rights, I have to figure a corporation must have their protection, unless the U.S. is prepared for radical change. Forget network and cable television and large-scale publishing and major film production without the first, for example.

[MrDibble]

@Martin_Hyde

I personally think such a view is probably more a product of ignorance of economics and the law than any thing else.

…not that you want to poison the well or anything…

At its core, the reason the “legal fiction” of corporate person hood exists is for the following very good reasons

Translation: let’s just start off assuming my conclusion, shall we?

:

1. It allows a corporation to sue and be sued.

Which is a good thing, essential to modern economy, because…?

2. It allows a corporation to own assets.

Which is a good thing, essential to modern economy, because…?

3. It allows a corporation to be taxed as a single entity.

Which is a good thing, essential to modern economy, because…?

4. It allows a corporation to enter into contracts.

Which is a good thing, essential to modern economy, because…?

Without those things, much of the economic system that has brought so much prosperity to the world from the mid-19th century until the present day would not exist, much of that prosperity would not exist.

Errrm, no. This is the logical fallacy of post hoc reasoning. You’ve done nothing to show that a system that emphasized personal rather than institutional responsibility wouldn’t develop along similar or better lines.

Without the four points I listed, it would be extremely difficult for any large business to exist in which ownership was shared by more than a very small number of persons.

Why does that logically follow? Large corporations existed before the notion of corporate personhood. Entities such as the Hnsa or the VOC existed at a time when personal responsibility still was the principle of common law.

That means business ventures would have a difficult to impossible time in raising funding in most cases.

Lack of corporate personhood precludes a subscription or share-based business model, how, exactly?

And even without that, a collectivist/syndicalist business model would have difficulty raising funding by open resource pooling because…?

It would retard growth, it would have prevented the modernization of society and many technologies we have today would probably not have been brought into production.

And every such tech is a good thing, essential to modern economy, because…? E.G Car culture, profit-driven urban sprawl, military-industrial complex, these are all good things?

In short, life would suck, for everyone, not just rich but also the poor.

Objection - assuming facts not in evidence.

[Odesio]

MrDibble, when you post a reply with that format it’s somewhat difficult to read. There’s no need to parse down every little statement for quotation and reply. It’s not the content of your message that I have a problem with but the presentation is such that I could barely muddle through it.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Martin_Hyde

At its core, the reason the “legal fiction” of corporate person hood exists is for the following very good reasons:

1. It allows a corporation to sue and be sued.
2. It allows a corporation to own assets.
3. It allows a corporation to be taxed as a single entity.
4. It allows a corporation to enter into contracts.

Without those things, much of the economic system that has brought so much prosperity to the world from the mid-19th century until the present day would not exist, much of that prosperity would not exist.

You could have all of that without a theory of corporate personhood: partnerships can do all of the above. In common law, the partnership could just be bypassed and the owners sued directly.

But partnerships have unlimited liability for their owners, unlike corporations. That, it seems, is what the OP is really about. For it is wholly consistent to say that limited liability corporations should not have human rights, though they may be treated as legal entities. That is we could say that a corporation can do 1-4 above, but unlike humans it can’t do 5-7. The OP isn’t about corporate personhood at all, as it concedes the possibility that corporations should not enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that humans do.

[Napier]

@RickJay

I’m not sure I really understand any of this.

First of all, the First Amendment doesn’t grant “protections” to anyone. It says the government cannot abridge the freedom opf speech. It’s not a “protection,” it’s a restriction. The argument of Citizens United was not that a “Corporation” should be “protected” by the Constitution, but that the plain reading of the First Amendment is that the government cannot do what they did. […]

Very interesting observation. You got me finding the text and contemplating it before the following problem occurred to me:

You are assuming that corporations are capable of speech. But in what sense is that true? People are capable of speech, and of suffering, and it’s a pretty clear underlying intent of the founders to make it more difficult for government to abuse the people by outlawing things like discussing government abuses. I can’t divine that that the founders considered speech to include things corporations did, to the exclusion of the things that people inside the corporation did. In other words, surely they would have said the people inside the corporation could speak without government restriction, but would they have extended that to this abstract entity?

[MrDibble]

@Odesio

MrDibble, when you post a reply with that format it’s somewhat difficult to read. There’s no need to parse down every little statement for quotation and reply. It’s not the content of your message that I have a problem with but the presentation is such that I could barely muddle through it.

Funny, it’s the format I *prefer *replies be in. And I’m not going to change.

[gonzomax]

@Napier

Very interesting observation. You got me finding the text and contemplating it before the following problem occurred to me:

You are assuming that corporations are capable of speech. But in what sense is that true? People are capable of speech, and of suffering, and it’s a pretty clear underlying intent of the founders to make it more difficult for government to abuse the people by outlawing things like discussing government abuses. I can’t divine that that the founders considered speech to include things corporations did, to the exclusion of the things that people inside the corporation did. In other words, surely they would have said the people inside the corporation could speak without government restriction, but would they have extended that to this abstract entity?

There is also the assumption that someone in the corporation actually speaks for all the members of the corporation including the workers and stockholders. That is a huge assumption. They actually speak only for those at the top who get an unbalanced share or the corporate profits.
The decision to move production to 3rd world countries and China is certainly not in the interests of employees who lose their jobs and retirements. The decision to allow a plant to illegally pollute is not often done with workers agreement. Now we remove whistleblower protections to keep corporate malfeasance from coming out. The deck is stacked against the American worker and tax payer.

[adhay]

@gonzomax

… The deck is stacked against the American worker and tax payer.

Thus, it has always been, class warfare waged on the poor. And with the poor reduced to fighting among themselves for crumbs under the table and distracted from the real issue by corporate media induced social squabbles, they hardly notice. Nice.

[gonzomax]

@adhay

Thus, it has always been, class warfare waged on the poor. And with the poor reduced to fighting among themselves for crumbs under the table and distracted from the real issue by corporate media induced social squabbles, they hardly notice. Nice.

Like Buffet said ,we are involved in class warfare and his class is winning. Part of it is that many middle class and poor people can somehow identify with the rich. They harbor an idea that they will be rich and they don’t want to pay taxes or answer to the law when they get there. It is as likely for most of us as winning the lottery. But that thin grasp of reality fuels many to support those who are crippling their lives with their greed .

[msmith537]

@gonzomax

I have no hostility to the concept of corporations ,they are a natural development of the American system. I just believe we should regulate them in order to have them serve the public good. The problem is not wealth but misconduct. There is plenty that corporations do to harm the country from environmental harm to tax evasion. That should not be allowed. it requires strong regulation and political will. Their wealth and power influence every aspect of our system. we should be in charge of corporations. They should not control us. They are capable of doing great harm.

They are regulated and subject to laws of all kinds, as are the employees and officers of those corporations.

Here is the problem I think you have with corporations. The nature of a corporation is such that the owners and employees can be completely disconnected and protected from the actions of that corporation or it’s consequences. A corporation, especially a large one, becomes collective that, without externanal legal controls, will simply act in whatever manner will increase profitability. It is the sum of thousands of individual decisions that collectively can do great good or great harm.

[adhay]

@gonzomax

Like Buffet said ,we are involved in class warfare and his class is winning.

When were they not? He might well have said they have.

Part of it is that many middle class and poor people can somehow identify with the rich. They harbor an idea that they will be rich and they don’t want to pay taxes or answer to the law when they get there. It is as likely for most of us as winning the lottery. But that thin grasp of reality fuels many to support those who are crippling their lives with their greed .

There are numerous of the sort here, if you haven’t noticed.

[gonzomax]

@adhay

When were they not? He might well have said they have.There are numerous of the sort here, if you haven’t noticed.

Oh, I have noticed. I keep knocking on the door hoping someone will open it.

[msmith537]

@gonzomax

Like Buffet said ,we are involved in class warfare and his class is winning. Part of it is that many middle class and poor people can somehow identify with the rich. They harbor an idea that they will be rich and they don’t want to pay taxes or answer to the law when they get there. It is as likely for most of us as winning the lottery. But that thin grasp of reality fuels many to support those who are crippling their lives with their greed .

So where do people like me fit in your dichotomy? I’m no Warren Buffet, but I’m not poor either. I’m a highly educated professional who makes a pretty good salary working as a mid-level manager/executive (and hopefully as a more senior manager/executive some day).

I may never be a CEO or billionaire, but for someone like me it’s more than just a vague “harboring an idea that I will be rich”. At any place I worked, there is a clear (but difficult) track. Most of the decisions I made on where to go to school, what to study, where to live and what companies to work at were all designed around maximizing my opportunities.

For someone like me, my interests are aligned professionally and financially with those of the company I work for. In fact, it is difficult for me to comprehend why many employees seem to view their employer as “the enemy”.

[adhay]

@msmith537

…
For someone like me, my interests are aligned professionally and financially with those of the company I work for. …

It’s time to realign, imho. There is no refuge in the low ground.

[Fear_Itself]

**Martin Hyde: **

Do you believe taxing stockholders on capital gains and dividends is double taxation?

[gonzomax]

@msmith537

So where do people like me fit in your dichotomy? I’m no Warren Buffet, but I’m not poor either. I’m a highly educated professional who makes a pretty good salary working as a mid-level manager/executive (and hopefully as a more senior manager/executive some day).

I may never be a CEO or billionaire, but for someone like me it’s more than just a vague “harboring an idea that I will be rich”. At any place I worked, there is a clear (but difficult) track. Most of the decisions I made on where to go to school, what to study, where to live and what companies to work at were all designed around maximizing my opportunities.

For someone like me, my interests are aligned professionally and financially with those of the company I work for. In fact, it is difficult for me to comprehend why many employees seem to view their employer as “the enemy”.

I never saw any corporation I worked for as the enemy. I used to believe that if the corporation succeeded, I would… That however has been proven to be one sided. Corporations will screw over employees if it makes money.
I do however think they should obey the laws and not do harm. i don’t think that is asking too much. But you do hit on a problem. If corporations have only one purpose, that is to maximize profits, then they are designed with corruption as an intrinsic part of the belief system. Not doing harm to the nation and the land should be a part of the business ethos. Without that, the polluting of the land ,exploiting of the workers and the corruption of the political system are part of the business theme. That is unacceptable. They don’t have to be the enemy. Just quit acting like it.