Perhaps some wise SDoper can explain how the USA evolved into a country equated with “free enterprise”, “competition”, “laissez-faire economics”, and such… Was the era of robber-barons that has enslaved the common man? I don’t recall the US Constitution securing the rights of big-business rather than the rights of citizens. So, how did this all get started?
Thankful for the freedom to ask this, but confused about what happpened to the “more perfect Union” our founding fathers intended for us.
I would reccomend reading Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, published in 1776, if you want to get an idea about the economic theories of the day. Smith speaks of the “invisible hand” of competition, which keeps prices low and quality high, and, I believe, promotes laissez-faire economics, which was a particular favorite idea of Jefferson’s.
I haven’t read it, by they way, but it was very influential in its time and, even today, is considered one of the greatest treatises on capitalism.
I second the recommendation made by Loopus. I also suggest that you try to break your question down into something a little closer to bite-sized. No one is ever going to satisfactorily answer your question in one post, or even one book. As to this:
Of what, exactly, do you think those Big (and for that matter Small and Medium-Sized) Businesses are composed? Killer robots from Mars?
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, trial by jury and other due process rights…or are you excluding the Bill of Rights and looking only at the original articles? In that case, no bills of attainder or ex post facto trials. Of course, the Bill of Rights also has safeguards for property rights–but that was before the era of giant corporations, and property rights were considered to be individual rights. (And still are, of course.)
Jinx, that’s the problem right now. Coorperations have all the individual rights of people - but close to no responsibilities whatsoever. I have no idea how this came about, but it’s a valid point, and it seems others here have taken it lightly. I’m anxious to hear the answer myself!
**M.E. - **
I was referring to the Constritution, as passed/ratified.
The Bill of Rights (aka admendments 1-10) was a separte entity.
The issues of Bill of Attainder, Ex Post Facto laws (not trials - different ideas (trails are in abstentia)), and Habeus Corpus (paging mr. ashcroft…) address the nature of the government being formed, much more than enumerating individual freedoms/rights.
all -
corporations are, legally, ‘persons’ - I’ll let the lawyers debate how that definition of a corporation has/has not afected their power (although being immortal certainly doesn’t hurt )
Yeah, I meant ex post facto laws. Darn it. Well, the Bill of Rights was passed pretty quickly after the Constitution was enacted, precisely in order to ensure that the system protected individual rights. I do think the original Constitutional provisions on bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and habeus corpus, and also the “no religious tests” clause, are all clearly protections of individuals from the power of the state. Of course, concerns that the Constitution didn’t go far enough in that direction led to the Bill of Rights.
Although I think corporations had been invented at the time the Constitution was written, they certainly weren’t as important as they are now. So it’s certainly possible that the framers, in writing both the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, did things which led to unintended consequences once corporations came to dominate the economic system.
My position is that the few “individual rights” mentioned were, at the time, well-established rules of law. They were listed mainly because the English had recently “forgotten” about them…
Corporations have power because of money - an investor cannot be held liable for the actions of the corporation[sup]*[/sup]. Therefor, there is no personal risk (aside from the possible decline of market value) in buying shares. This insulation makes it easy to raise huge amounts of money, and, after WWI eliminated royality in the west, it was money that determined power.
Perhaps we are simply in for another round of robber barons v. reformers - but the stakes are getting pretty high.
no other form of business (sole proprietor, partnership, variations on these themes) have this exception - the owners of those businesses are personally liable for wrongdoings performed by the company. Too bad Enron, et al were corporations.
)