Corporate Person-hood Ramifications

[gumOnShoe]

Coorporations, as you probably know, are entities that allow their owners to risk limited liability for the actions of the company, essentially by granting the company legal rights to be a person in certain situations. By doing this, it makes it easier for business people to capitalize opportunities, raise money, and do various business things. Its not too important.

Recently, the supreme court said corporations have the right to donate to campaigns as if they were people and had the right to free speech. We had this conversation some time ago, but we're finally seeing the results from groups like American Crossroads, which is massively funded by the Koch brothers who own the equivalent of an energy syndicate. They are using their power to run political opponents out of office in states like California where regulation threatens their business plan. The Koch brothers are the third richest entity in the U.S. behind Gates and a few others. Most of the money is being funneled through political action groups so that it looks like grass roots movements are behind the money, when it really is a corporation. Similar to how tobacco companies would get their doctors to say one thing to confuse the information available on cigarettes.

Another nasty result of this legislation is that foreign powers can influence our elections, again by buying advertisements, donating to certain groups, etc.

While it is true that our nation is a republic, it is my continued belief that this is perhaps the most devastating turn of law to any of our democratic processes.

[Korriken]

the liberals used to scream and whine about it, until General Motors began to make campaign contributions again, which is odd considering that the government stills owns 60% of GM and that GM still owes the tax payers. Given that GM still hasn't paid back all of its 50 billion + in bailout money, they have no business making contributions to anything except paying back the taxpayers.

but you don't hear any outrage about that one.

personally, i don't care, money makes the world go around and those in power will be corrupt asswipes regardless so there you go.

[Memorize]

Oh boo-hoo.

You mean to tell me that Individuals are using their property to give their money away?

Holy shit, that is SO the biggest problem we have right now.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

True, liberals are such hypocrites when it comes to regulating capitalism. They think it would be better if the government did everything but they inadvertantly hand power to the plutocrats through tax codes, legal immunities, subsidies and anti-competitive licenses and regulations which have nothing to do with public safety or enforcing justice whatsoever. Then to finish it off they have the nerve to say "CONSERVATIVES ARE TOOLS OF THE OPPRESSORS, VIVA LA REVOLUCION" as if they weren't an integral element of corporate hegemony.

All keynesian socialism does is hand over people's economic freedom to the faceless bureaucracy that is the state which people have very little control over.

[SadisticMonkey]

lol @ liberals blaming corrupt politicians on "evil greedy corporations"

[Camarohusky]

I'm not too worried about Citizens United v. FEC. Target tried to make use of the system and got severely burned because of it. Most companies are going to keep it in their pants and stay away from political contributions.

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/28/10 11:34 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm not too worried about Citizens United v. FEC. Target tried to make use of the system and got severely burned because of it. Most companies are going to keep it in their pants and stay away from political contributions.

sigh

...

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/28/10 01:44 AM, Memorize wrote: Oh boo-hoo.

You mean to tell me that Individuals are using their property to give their money away?

Holy shit, that is SO the biggest problem we have right now.

Is it legal to bribe a public official? You are merely giving what you own, your money for what they own, their vote.

Is it legal to hire a hitman? You are merely giving a man your money, to do a job.

Is it legal to write lies about other people (libel)? Is it legal to pay others to do so?

Is legality subjective? If yes, then do we subjectively want a democratic process where everyone has a voice and has a chance to be heard?

Oh don't get me wrong. I could live in a world that had truly turned corpratist. I have a pretty good idea of what that world would look like. A world where everyone is free to do what they are capable of doing inside an economic system of money exchanges. I simply prefer not to live that way. It is my belief, that given the option, most people would agree with me. Sadly, most people don't pay attention and never actively make the choice, but instead passively make the choice to slip on into yet another form of human society. You can decide that this is all protected and should be protected byt he law, but get over the property rules. Everyone knows the only reason "property" exists is because a bunch of men with guns will shoot you if you disagree.

[Patton3]

Can someone tell me why this thread went immediately from "A few months ago, legislation was passed in order to allow corporations to donate to campaign as part of a freedom of speech. I think this is horrible and here's why, what do you think?" right to "Hur hur, libruls are teh stupidz, lulzors!"

[SadisticMonkey]

At 9/28/10 06:46 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Oh don't get me wrong. I could live in a world that had truly turned corpratist. I have a pretty good idea of what that world would look like. A world where everyone is free to do what they are capable of doing inside an economic system of money exchanges.

That is not corporatism at all.

In a world where people can bribe politicians to whatever extent they want, it would not be a free market like you're describing. It would be the OPPOSITE of that. There would be so, so many regulations and controls passed that would make it extremely difficult/impossible to engage in free exchange and to use one's property freely UNLESS you are politically connected.

You apparently don't understand that the corporation as it exists today is largely an invention of the state. You presuppose their existence and act as if the state is the only thing standing between the corporations ruling society, when in reality it is from the state that they gain their power in the first place.

I'm not saying that corporations don't have extremely malicious intentions and that I'm happy with them doing whatever they please. On the contrary; I'm saying that because of this the state shouldn't exist because it offer corporations a chance to have far too much power, and as long as the state exists corporations can exploit the state's power, regardless of any delusionally hopeful McCain-Feingold controls being in place.

Everyone knows the only reason "property" exists is because a bunch of men with guns will shoot you if you disagree.

You're right in that property "rights" are merely a consequence of the fact that people almost universally want to own shit and will fight you, physically or otherwise, if you try and take what they believe is theirs.

However, this "a bunch of men with guns will shoot you if you disagree." is EXACTLY how a state functions. There is a large element of ideological support, but the only reason they are able to collect taxes or enforce their "laws" is because if you don't agree, they'll kidnap and imprison you, and shoot you if you try and fight back.

And even though property "rights" as the mystical concept that most people describe them as are complete bullshit, you have to realise that the existence of practical property ownership is extremely important for the economy, and I would go so far as to suggest that our entire standard of living is dependant upon it.
I don't mean this into relation to your original post, just in response in your very broad criticism of property ownership.

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/28/10 10:00 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: stuff

Which is why this argument is ending here. You don't get that in the free market EVERYTHING has a price.

[Spackled]

At 9/28/10 07:02 PM, Patton3 wrote: Can someone tell me why......

Bcuz KKKarl Rove, Ann Cunter, and Fauxx Noize ZOMG!!!1!!11!

Or maybe you're just imagining things and complaining about nothing. :)

[SadisticMonkey]

At 9/28/10 10:29 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Which is why this argument is ending here. You don't get that in the free market EVERYTHING has a price.

what the shit

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/29/10 06:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 9/28/10 10:29 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Which is why this argument is ending here. You don't get that in the free market EVERYTHING has a price.

what the shit

You're arguments are all interchangeable and I'm no longer going to derail my threads by have the "Government/Free Market is(n't) bad argument)."

You want to talk about something in the opening post go for it, but Patton was right. I never mentioned liberals or conservatives and it is amazing how quickly this topic devolved. I will never respond to these kinds of arguments again. Your choice whether you want to waste your typing.

[Musician]

Back on topic. Check this out.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that liability under the Alien Torts Claims Act does not apply to corporations.

should the case...be upheld by the US Supreme Court, it will be impossible for plaintiffs to file lawsuits in the US against corporations that have violated international human rights laws overseas

"The principle of individual liability for violations of international law has been limited to natural persons - not 'juridical' persons such as corporations - because the moral responsibility for a crime so heinous and unbounded as to rise to the level of an 'international crime' has rested solely with the individual men and women who have perpetrated it," the majority opinion states.

So basically, corporations have the green light to attack anti-corporate activists; brutalize, murder, and torture them; and the victims will have no legal recourse in the United States. So corporations have all the benefits of being a person, and none of the liabilities? Interesting.

[Elfer]

Yeah, as far as I know, corporations only used to be considered "people" in certain situations that facilitated government actions. This leads to some confusion in legal situations, because they're being treated as people despite the fact that they obviously are not.

Whether or not we want to argue about how liberals are dumb or conservatives are tools, I think it should be at least concerning that you're creating a system with entities that are essentially "people" with so much wealth and power that, in some ways, they are above the law.

[Jon-86]

Cool, just need to get super-rich. Buy the presidency and then press some buttons on the football my secret service hitman carry's around for me :)

Sweet!

[SadisticMonkey]

At 9/29/10 07:33 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: to derail my threads by have the "Government/Free Market is(n't) bad argument)."

Except it was entirely relevant.

You want to talk about something in the opening post go for it, but Patton was right. I never mentioned liberals or conservatives and it is amazing how quickly this topic devolved. I will never respond to these kinds of arguments again. Your choice whether you want to waste your typing.

My second post had nothing to do with "liberals". They were valid points and you just brushed them aside.

[gumOnShoe]

Elfer, I agree. I find it odd that these companies are deemed to have rights when its always the people in the companies making the decision.

At 9/29/10 10:50 AM, Musician wrote: So basically, corporations have the green light to attack anti-corporate activists; brutalize, murder, and torture them; and the victims will have no legal recourse in the United States. So corporations have all the benefits of being a person, and none of the liabilities? Interesting.

This is similar to the bill that was shut down that made it so women couldn't sue a company that tried to silence them after being molested/abused.

Its weird. The way the law is written, its written to protect CEOs, unless the company would be hurt more by something it did. Its like, they found a way to always have a human shield.

[SadisticMonkey]

Wait, so LAWS written by the STATE are being blamed on corporations? lol

"Look at this, the government are passing all these laws to help corporations! What's that sadisticmonkey? You think that corporations use state power to help increase and protect profits, and that this is proof of this? That's CRAZY talk! the obvious culprit is FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!"

[Camarohusky]

At 10/1/10 07:39 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 9/29/10 10:50 AM, Musician wrote: So basically, corporations have the green light to attack anti-corporate activists; brutalize, murder, and torture them; and the victims will have no legal recourse in the United States. So corporations have all the benefits of being a person, and none of the liabilities? Interesting.

Its weird. The way the law is written, its written to protect CEOs, unless the company would be hurt more by something it did. Its like, they found a way to always have a human shield.

Actually, corporate structure is made to protect the shareholders, not the CEO. Otherwise a simple person with one share could be held personally liable (i.e. their personal possession would be up for grabs) in a suit, or to a creditor. Also, this structure does not shield the people from liability resulting from gross negligence, recklessness and intentional torts. Everything Musician listed is an intetiontional torts and the limited liability structire of a Corp. would not cover this.

[gumOnShoe]

At 10/1/10 09:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Actually, corporate structure is made to protect the shareholders, not the CEO. Otherwise a simple person with one share could be held personally liable (i.e. their personal possession would be up for grabs) in a suit, or to a creditor. Also, this structure does not shield the people from liability resulting from gross negligence, recklessness and intentional torts. Everything Musician listed is an intetiontional torts and the limited liability structire of a Corp. would not cover this.

K, didn't quite understand that. That said, it still doesn't make sense to make a corp off limits if their policy is to do harm as an organization. Though, I can't say targeting the leaders is that bad of an option either. It should probably be a combination, but personhood shouldn't even be part of the decision making.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/1/10 05:52 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

K, didn't quite understand that. That said, it still doesn't make sense to make a corp off limits if their policy is to do harm as an organization.

I read the link and it just says that the issues cannot be tried in US Federal Courts. It must be tried elsewhere. that's not an indemnification, rather just a jurisdiction/venue issue.

Though, I can't say targeting the leaders is that bad of an option either. It should probably be a combination, but personhood shouldn't even be part of the decision making.

The point of a corporation is that the leaders cannot be sued for the acts of the corporation.