You do realize that entrepreneurs face these same obstacles, right?
Why would landlords and grocers want to do that?
So that what do you mean by “corporate personhood” then?
It did nothing of the sort and anyone who told you it did is an ignoramus.
Or perhaps you would provide me with evidence that corporations can vote. Or that corporations can’t be owned by people - an obviously absurdity, and yet logically if corporations had the same rights as living, breathing people, they couldn’t be owned, that being a violation of the Constitution.
As I have said, I know. I even named some.
But what if I want to start one that isn’t, and need to hire two people? Can you explain why I shouldn’t be allowed to do that? You do realize the vast majority of companies - the ones that create jobs, you know - start the way I’m describing?
Yes, it does. The entire point of a corporation is its status as a legal person, for God’s sake. That’s why we have the term. That’s why it’s called a “corporation,” in fact.
Now, you could restrict the rights of a corporation. You could expand or contract the extent to which a corporation limits liability or exercises any right. You can fiddle with the legalities a million different ways. You cvould take away the rights of corporations to, say, engage in free speech. Don’t like the court decisions pertaining to that? Change the Constitution, voila, problem solved.
But if it’s no longer a legal person at all, it’s not a “corporation.”
People say that, but I think risk might be over-estimated. You could secure funding via banking committees and the like.
The real problem is finding somebody with a sense of ownership over the firm. Starting a business can be fun, but somebody has to take it upon themselves to stay up with the sick calf or make difficult personnel decisions. When the stake in the firm is diffused among all its employees, certain management challenges arise. That said, the partnership model works for some pretty big law firms.
Justices Black and Douglas appear to disagree with you.
Forgive me if I value their opinions higher than yours. The Supreme Court had decided that Fourteenth Amendment protections apply to corporations, which the Connecticut decision merely reaffirmed. It is a simple fact. A legal fiction has constitutional rights equal to citizens. I happen to agree with Justice Black that “this Court should now overrule previous decisions which interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to include corporations.” Unfortunately, it has yet to happen and does not appear that it will anytime soon.
You are assuming that the rules are the same. That there is ‘an owner’ and ‘employees’. A workers cooperative has no employees in the corporate sense. The founding entrepreneur is not seeking to hire workers. The goal is to find equal partners and to work together to start the venture. Everyone is to provide equity. It is not the founder putting up all the capital and then dividing it equally among everyone who shows up. It is all the members contributing capital. Future members have to contribute as well, but many coops have arrangements where that initial capital can be earned through labor, i.e. sweat equity, but until they reach the threshold, they do not receive any returns. Everyone receives ‘draws’, not wages for their day to day living.
Why would entrepreneurs do this over starting a normal business? One, they need less personal capital. They do not have to surrender equity or control to venture capitalists or bank officers, but share control with his partners. And the hope is that the rewards will outweigh the risks, and the return on the investment be worth the effort, just as in any venture. But mostly it is because they believe in equality of all of those who partake in the venture. That some are not more ‘deserving’ of the rewards (which includes the pride of ownership and other intangibles beyond monetary compensation) than others, and that everyone should have an opportunity to share those rewards equally.
If the entrepreneurs want to be the boss, then let them start sole proprietorships. They can make personal contracts with other individuals on whatever terms they agree to. But that is a contract between two individuals. If that entrepreneur wants to start a corporation and obtain the privileges that form affords over a proprietorship, then they should be required to share equity in return.
No one has the right to engage in commerce in whatever manner they wish. They have to follow the methods proscribed by law. That the law allows corporations to continue the artificial distinction between ‘owners’ and ‘employees’ is a cultural legacy, but it is not holy writ. It is not a law of nature or of economics. It is a cultural construct that predates democratic society and should be discarded. It perpetuates the myth that some are ‘masters’ and others are ‘servants’ or ‘serfs’.
And personally, the risks people take engaging in employment are far greater than the risks investors take buying second or third hand shares long after the company received the capital from those shares. It is simple. The users of capital should have the ownership of that capital. Investors are financiers - let them provide money, let them receive money. They are not entitled to ownership.
And the fact is simple that no matter how much capital an individual has, there is only so much they can do with it in a given day. They desire greater returns so they ‘hire’ help. But without that help, those returns would not exist. So the help should be entitled to a fair share of those returns - as equity, not wages. It means looking at help not as ‘employees’ but as partners or associates, as equals.
I suppose this is the core principle - if we have to engage in commerce - and until the singularity hits, it looks like we do have to, then we should use commerce to increase equality and equity among everyone. Commercial enterprises should be consciously seeking to improve the welfare of everyone involved in a transaction, not perpetuating ancient power dynamics that really do need to be discarded.
No it doesn’t. You could always do a Dred Scott on them: declare corporations 1/5th of a person and give them a few of the more “necessary” :rolleyes: rights. Say it’s not personhood - call it something else, because corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons. Corporations are legal entities.
But that’s the stumbling block to the whole thing. Normal people do not view people equally when it comes to effort expended on a business. Even your worker comrades do not believe in equality (although they conveniently say they do when it suits their agendas such as getting equity in a profitable company.)
How about this: Two entrepreneurs start an LLC holding company and also a C-corporation. The C-corp hires 998 employees and those workers each have 1/1000th the ownership of that company. The LLC subcontracts the C-corp to provide services (e.g. manufacturing, assembly line work, etc). The C-corp sends invoices to the LLC. The employees with their equity in the C-corp get a percentage of the profits that the LLC paid to C-corp. The 2 owners of LLC “may” look like their getting a ton of money before it gets sent to the C-corp but that’s irrelevant to this game right? It actually looks like an arrangement that’s compliant with your rules. Would that be acceptable to you?
Investors are using that capital so I guess they get ownership. What does your “use” of that capital mean? That the person’s hands actually have to physically come into contact with the equipment?
But what we have are voluntary transactions. An owner and a potential employee meet to discuss a working arrangement. The employee in his mind feels that his help is essential to the extra revenue. He insists that equity is a fair trade for his work input. An owner does not feel like equity is fair to him. This is not about right or wrong but the options that people have. The employee stands his ground won’t budge on the equity compensation. The owner then goes to the next potential employee candidate to see if he can pay a wage instead of equity. This is a normal mindset.
Owners are not “entitled” to a company. They have to work for it. Same for employees. There’s nothing magical about equity in companies. If the employee is valuable enough, he will be offered some type of equity compensation. Or the employee can start his own company and have his own equity.
You can’t expect people to look at employees as partners unless they behave like partners. We have a list of things in our minds as to what real “partners” do: they share initial risks, they sacrifice wages, they provide irreplaceable assets such as technical skills or social access to more investors, etc.
That depends on how you define normal. The current norms of behavior - driven in no small part by how the current structures operate - do encourage the belief in inequality. Changing the structure can help change those beliefs.
Actually, yes. That would be acceptable to me. All the members of each firm are owners of that firm. How firms should interact among themselves is an entirely different issue. As long as both parties are in agreement, I do not see a problem. I have seen arrangements similar to that actually.
That was careless on my part. I do mean physical capital as opposed to financial capital. One of my issues with capitalist system is that it creates a false equivalence between the two. Investors provide financial ‘capital’. They should receive their returns in kind. The people who show up everyday - owners or employees - and actually work with that physical capital (which does include intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, etc.) should be the owners of that capital.
Again, that ‘normal’ mindset is based on current structures and practices which perpetuate an artificial distinction between owners and employees.
Slavery was a common practice. Absolute monarchies were a common practice. Western society has decided that humans are fundamentally equal and so those practices are now considered either archaic at best or abominations at worse. But we still continue to foster in-equal behavior in commercial relationships.
If a population is ignorant of their civil rights and responsibilities, then they should be educated on what they are, not deprived of them. The same principle should apply to economic rights and responsibilities also.
The whole point is that there should be no distinction between ‘owners’ and ‘employees’ - everyone has to work for it. And everyone receives an equal share of the returns. Under the current system, any investor who has sufficient financial capital can take ownership of a corporation without ever having done a moments work for that company. And those investors often do feel they are ‘entitled’ to that for reasons I do not agree are valid.
And for me, attitude occurs before behavior. Employees do not act like partners since, one, they are simply told they are not; two, they receive no incentives to do otherwise. If an organization treats its members like partners, they will start to take ownership and act like partners. If an organization does the opposite, why should the employees behave like partners? It is part of that whole ‘do unto others as you have them do unto you.’ Treat people as equals, they will act like equals. Treat people as unequal and too many will live up to that expectation also.
I just see this as the next step on the continuum of worker development and empowerment. Fifty-odd years ago, wages were a fair compensation for employees whose duties were not much more than clocking in, working under direct supervision on highly specified tasks for x hours and then clocking out. They were not required, or encouraged, to engage in critical thinking or behavior. Those days are long gone, but the compensation structure remains. We have moved into a knowledge economy, and ‘employees’ are expected to take ‘ownership’ of their work and behave more critically. They have been given more responsibility but still receive mostly the same compensation. ESOPs have increased because of the awareness and development of the workers, not because of any enlightenment among investors or management. I see the transition of workers from partial owners to the sole class of owners as the next stage. But corporations and the investment community that control them hinder that adoption in no small part due to the political power large corporations and their investors have amassed.
And I am not surprised that current investors would not want to change the system any more than plantation owners wanted to abolish slavery or monarchs wanted to abdicate their thrones. But as humanity outgrew those institutions, I believe we will outgrow the current oligarchies that control the commercial world and have too much influence over the non-commercial parts of that world. I certainly hope the transition can occur without the wars and turmoil that ended slavery or monarchies in most countries.
Liberty is meaningless unless it is shared by all, which includes sharing the means of procuring the fruits of that liberty. Liberty without equality is merely the exploitation by those who possess freedom over those that do not. And economic power is just as important as political power. I see no reason why it should not be wielded democratically as well.
You are badly confused as to what the word “person” means in legal terms, which is why you don’t understand this.
Nothing in your provided cite supports your claim that the Santa Clara case gave corporations the same rights as living and breathing human beings. It quite clearly states that the case recognized them as being persons for some legal purposes, not all. The justices agree with me, not you.
Yes - those legal purposes being the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. And where did I claim they have *all *the rights of citizens? They have some of the same rights and constitutional protections. Thankfully they do not have all of them (yet, anyway).
So the question is how did they receive that status…
I was trying to remember where I first heard of Thom Hartmann and his book. Then I remembered.
How can a corporation be legally considered a person?
The argument of Justices Black and others who disagree with that decision is that there is a difference between natural and legal persons. Natural persons should have those rights and protections. Legal fictions should not. And they did not until the Santa Clara decision.
If it did not occur with that decision, then how did it happen, may I ask? Because you are the first person I have heard who claims otherwise.
And the fact that corporations are considered even legal persons under the law in no way implies that such consideration is proper or should continue. But that is a separate issue, and is perhaps the least of my reasons for opposing corporations. I am more concerned with their affect on economic and social behavior than their status under the law.
What about, and this is simpler, a employee union as part owner of the company? It’s worked well a few places.
Here:
I don’t see a “some of” there.
I worked inside Gm and Ford for many years. I was always amazed at how much effort was spent by managers in trying to further their careers at the expense of someone else. The dirty dealing . including hiding other leaders successes, taking other leaders problems to higher ups to make them look bad and always trying to gobble another department into his department ,giving him more power and prestige.
A corporation is a very flawed organization and the bigger it gets the more time and money it wastes. That is why they buy up better ,smaller competitors thereby making them just as slow and wasteful as they are. They really can not compete with a smaller hands on company in speed or innovation. If you are big enough like Microsoft or GM ,you just take their ideas and dare them to sue. You spend a lot of time and money in court, but that is just a business expense nowadays
I’m not badly confused about what the word “person” means in the legal sense. YOU are badly confused about what I’m saying about the legal definition.
Once again: I am saying that what the word “person” means in the legal sense is bullshit and it needs to be changed. The word ‘person’ should be replaced with ‘entity’ and its defined set of rights should be cut a bit shorter than it is now.
Personhood, legal or otherwise, should never be a word conferred upon anyone but human beings.
“Oh my gawd, Becky, she is wearing the same outfit I am!”
“You mean she is wearing all of your clothes?”
“…”
Santa Clara gave corporations all the constitutional rights that natural persons have. (Subsequent decisions have greyed the area though.) Citizens have those same rights. Citizens also have more rights than persons, natural or legal.
Note that Cecil used the same terminology as well.
But my original statement only referred to the recognition of those rights under Santa Clara, which you claimed was based on some ‘internet meme’ and then claimed that Santa Clara “did nothing of the sort.” Both of those claims are false.
That’s not at all analogous.
The distnction between natural and legal persons is a rather gigantic one and it’s as critical to understanding law as concepts like “jurisdiction” or the distinction between criminal and civil law. If you’re unclear on this, you can’t comment intelligently on the matter, and part of that is understanding why some parts of a country’s Constitution must logically apply to legal persons, but not other parts.
Our system of law must have the concept of legal personage. There’s no way law makes sense without it. You can’t have “Brown v. Board of Education” without it. You can’t be hired by a company. You can’t have contracts that make a lick of sense. You couldn’t do a zillion things that grease the wheels of everyday life.
Are you joking?
So you’re saying Santa Clare freed corporations from the bonds of being owned by people?
You just used a lame analogy to claim you didn’t say that, and now, incredibly, you’re saying it again.
Your first suggestion is just stupid. Changing the word from “person” to “entity” is pointless. Changing the name doesn’t do anything, it’s the same concept. If we started calling corporations “klegblarts” it wouldn’t change a thing.
As to the “defined set of rights,” sure, why not? Amend the Constitution accordingly. What’s your proposed amendment?
So was the analogy “not at all” valid or was it just lame? Or is it that we are arguing on a message board and not a court of law, and every piece of rhetoric does not require absolute accuracy. I gave your implication that the same equals all, and common usage shows that it does not, the level of sophistication I felt it deserved.
And you to continue to ignore providing any substantial rebuttal, so I ask again.
If legal persons have constitutional rights, and if it did not occur with that decision, then how did it happen? If there is a limit on those rights, what are they and how did that occur? And note that I stated subsequent decisions have established distinctions between natural and legal persons.
I have provided at least three sources of where I learned my information (and only one based on the internet, i.e. Cecil.)
I am still waiting for any cite that claims otherwise.
I doubt anyone disputes that. The argument is what entities should be allowed to have that status, and what rights and privileges that status should have under the law, constitutional or not. But as I said, my opposition to corporations has little to do with their legal status.
That must be why GM did so well.
Why do you lump all companies with two lumbering automotive corporate giants like GM and Ford?
Also, do you have any particular legal cases in mind or are you just regurgitating something you think you heard somewhere?
Bill Gates got his start because the people inside IBM knew that corporations are slow and inefficient. They thought they needed a PC and the big bosses knew inside it would be a long slow process with every important move requiring many signatures. They went outside because they knew time was important.
I worked on the development of a fuel pump for a Detroit auto supplier. We were a 20-30 employee company and they turned the design and development of the pump totally over to us. They wanted it done.
Most businessmen are aware of the inefficiency of corporations.
Big corps can but talent. Most sharp engineers are swayed by the pay , benefits and relative security of big companies. Everybody subcontracts to escape the corporate hierarchy .
Yeah? So what? Companies merge and divest themselves of divisions all the time. Automobile makers tend to be “large, slow and inefficient” because they are extremely capital intensive. They require lots of large expensive machines and highly skilled workers to crank out millions of vehicles with thousands of parts that take years to design. GM probably subcontracts out to hundreds of companies. Try building an entire car with just 20 people.