Rick, you are mistaken when you suggest I don’t understand limited liability. I’d be a lousy nineteenth-century historian if I didn’t, since the mid-century passage of limited liability legislation was a landmark in British history. Up until that time failing in business was considered a kind of personal moral failing.
Unfortunately, I don’t know the detailed US history that Nader alluded to when I heard him speak.
“What is this “protected status”? Corporations obviously do not enjoy all the same rights as a person. They can’t vote.”
Actually as I recall, Nader’s point was that corporations enjoy more powers than persons; not identical powers. But they enjoy similar legal protections.
No, corporations can’t vote. Then again, there are many persons who also can’t vote: those under 18 today, adult women prior to the early 20th-century; prisoners; convicted felons in some states under certain conditions; and, most notoriously, those living in the state of Florida suspected of not voting Republican ;).
My point: the legal status of a person is not contingent on having the right to vote.
Of course, the “person” concept was adopted to protect the liability of shareholders; and that was originally a good thing when people’s lives could be ruined in a volatile, largely unregulated, boom-to-bust capitalist economy.
But things have changed a lot and todya’s large corporation is far more powerful than any person could ever be–with or without the right to cast one vote in an election compromised by monied interests.
I don’t have the specific arguments at hand, alas, but I suspect there’s a way to protect shareholders while holding corporations more liable than the current laws permit.
Anyone else who has specific knowledge of this Nader issue? Avalonian?
“I absolutely, positively, totally guarantee you that the notion of “public interest” would, in such hearings, become “in the interest of the political party controlling the commission that hears the case” within five years.”
I agree with you that naked partisanship sucks–which is why the SCOTUS has fallen into disrepute for many Americans. But I do believe that there are ways to improve corporate oversight without excess partisanship. Permanent civil servants, not appointed by politicians can be more impartial (if not always less prone to bureaucratic failings).
The public interest should be defined by specific statute–depending on what the actual concern is. EPA should review for environmental compliance; IRS for taxation; SEC for accounting.
I don’t say whether this should be done automatically every five years–a cost/benefit analysis would have to be considered.
I also have no problem considering alternatives to permanent government officials: NGOs, citizen-business alliances, community groups. I’ve got an open mind. I don’t love bureaucracy any more than the next person. But what’s clear to me is that we are now in a dangerously deregulated environment. EPA has been emasculated. IRS is doing few audits of the rich, and many corporations have been paying no tax–partly due to dubious and probably illegal tax schemes set up by big accounting firms. The present scandals have shown us how the system of allowing consulting firms to be auditors is deeply corrupting.
“Honestly, I think Nader has his heart in the right place, but suggestions like these strike me as being so dumb I can’t believe they’ve been seriously thought out.”
Well, having done a bit more research I’m ready to conclude that these were definitely not Nader proposals.
Apparently the Green Party has two different platforms. One of them was adopted by the Green Party Congress. This is the more radical of the two documents, and the one from which pld’s eyebrow-raising proposals were excerpted.
The second one (already posted by me above) was “ratified” at the National Convention. Although I’ve only skimmed parts of it, it’s definitely more Naderite. Compare the banking proposals posted by me to those posted by pld and you’ll see what I mean.
I have no way of knowing for certain, but I’m guessing that Nader had a big hand in the Convention’s platform but little or none in the Congress’s platform. (Also, where the Congress’s platform has a disclaimer about not reflecting specific candidates’ views, the Convention’s doesn’t–at least I didn’t spot one.)
“But “public referenda on phasing out products” has got to be the silliest thing I’ve ever read. Are we going to force companies to keep making outdated products because they lost a referendum? Gosh, let’s bring back whale oil.”
I don’t trust public referenda either. I’ve seen too many lousy referenda passed by a duped voting public.
Still, I actually think you’re exaggerating unnecessarily on the underlying question of phasing out products. There are already ways that companies are forced to cease producing toxic products. The FDA does this kind of thing with food and drugs. I don’t know for certain who has authority over toxic products: presumably the EPA. Let’s not forget that laws already criminalize the production and sale of certain products: cocaine, for example.
And I imagine that if citizens felt a strong need for an old-fashioned product–quality childcare for example–it could be subsidized. In fact, I’m extremely in favor of subsidizing childcare in the way that France does. (Not sure what goes on in Canada, Rick).
Tobacco is an interesting example. Imagine a public referenda on phasing out the sale of cigarettes. I’m not saying I support it: and I certainly don’t expect to ever see it happen. But I think it might be fun to speculate on how it would play out.
(I should mention that I’m actually more of a Millite liberal here than a regulatory liberal. I think most drugs should be decriminalized. I don’t think tobacco should be outlawed. But I’d certainly like to see tobacco advertising curbed some more. In fact I’d like to see advertising cut back most of all.)
Sam, sorry no time yet to reply to you but perhaps later tonight.
perspective, Olentz welcome to the fray.
Avalonian, thanks for your generosity on the matter of the hijacked OP.
