patrick.net

OK, first I found that there seems to be a positive connotation with the phrase "Corporate Citizenship". A better way to describe the situation is Corporate Personhood.

Here is a link to one organization which supports the end of Corporate Personhood, whose website I am perusing now: http://www.duhc.org/about_whoWeAre.html

Here is their Mission Statement:

Our world is in terrible crisis. Solutions to the problems we face are not being implemented because “We the People” do not have control over our own government.

Multinational corporations have become the governing institutions – determining for us how our food is grown and distributed, how we heat and light our homes, what poisons we breathe, drink and eat. Giant corporations largely decide what controversies get attention, how wealth is shared and distributed, what solutions are acceptable, who gets elected to public office and how the United States treats other nations.

Citizens have lost our authority over the fundamental decisions that affect our lives. We are defined as “consumers,” left to choose between paper or plastic at the grocery store.

We think it is time for this to change.
Mission Statement

Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County (DUHC) educates citizens about the illegitimate seizure of our authority to govern ourselves. We design and implement grassroots strategies that exercise democratic power over corporations and governments. We seek to create a truly democratic society by provoking a non-violent popular uprising against corporate rule in Humboldt County that can serve as a model for other communities across the United States.

I have to admit, I do not understand what people mean when they say they want to outlaw "Corporate Personhood".

My guess is that what you mean is that you want to outlaw is the concept of "limited liability", where people (owners) can hide behind a corporation and in some sense avoid personal responsibility.

Is that what you mean?

Let me get this straight. You want to eliminate corporations because of undue influence.

Well, how about this: All wars are started by politicians, whether it be a Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin deciding to invade some neighbors, a Congress declaring war on Mexico, or a Kennedy-Johnson deciding to unleash the military on Vietnam. Would you suggest eliminating politicians?

You would have all businesses in the USA be sole proprieterships or partnerships? Do you really think that would work on the scale or an HP or Ford Motor?

Corporations have no military, police force, nor the ability to use force to implement laws. Therefore, any influence a corporation would have is strictly based on specific government official's willingness to take bribes. Only when the public holds the politico's responsible will the politico serve the public, and not give undue favor to corporations and wealthy individuals (think Denise Rich's ex and Bill Clinton's 1,000 Pardons).

I wouldn't want to eliminate corporations. I just don't want them to be legally classified as people.

They are not people. They are amoral machines for making money. OK, I'm fine with that. But machines can be dangerous. You can lose some fingers if you don't have the appropriate safeguards around them.

Classifying corporations as people is like giving HAL the computer control over your oxygen. Not a great idea.

frodo says

Citizens have lost our authority over the fundamental decisions that affect our lives. We are defined as “consumers,” left to choose between paper or plastic at the grocery store.

You are kidding, right?

When I go to the store, I can choose what to buy and how much, or not at all. I can even choose not to use either paper or plastic. In fact, when I am a consumer is when I get the most choice. A consumer is the one the corporation (as well as sole prop or partnership) must worked hard to please.

As a taxpayer, it is a bit different. I have no choice as to how much I will be taxed, I can't choose not to be taxed, and I have no say to how the taxes I pay are spent.

Government is already responsible for policing Corporations. The problem is when the voters do not "police" the elected officials. Where is the outrage over the President having the UBS senior exec as his Martha's Vinyard golfing buddy? Why isn't Sanford facing impeachment for his blatent abuse of state funds?

I agree with the top post. Specifically, I believe that corporations:
1) Should not have the right to sue individuals for libel/slander. They don't have feelings to be hurt, and it is vitally important that there be free discussion of their activities given the amount of power they have.
2) Should not have the same rights to free speech that individuals enjoy. Corporate communications should be (and in the case of advertisements are) held to a much higher standard.
3) Should not have the same rights to privacy that individuals enjoy. They don't have feelings to be hurt and it just ends up being an excuse to hide malfeasance.
4) Should not have the same rights to political speech (financially supporting parties and candidates) that individuals do. They don't have morals, values and ethics to contribute to the debate they just want to make money.

Thats my opinion

Princess says

I wouldn’t want to eliminate corporations. I just don’t want them to be legally classified as people

Corporations are a legal entity, just like a person. In fact, the word "Corporation" means "embodiment."

Saying you do not want corporations to be distinct legal identities separate from thier owners is like saying you want a dog as long as it is not a canine.

bdrasin says

I agree with the top post. Specifically, I believe that corporations:
1) Should not have the right to sue individuals for libel/slander.

A major news network broadcasts a "60 Minutes Show" stages a side impact crash with a GM pickup truck showing how easily the truck bursts into flames. It is discovered that a model rocket motor and an accelerant were used to cause the spectacular burst into flames. (This is true).

GM should not be able to sue for slander? Something like that would not "hurt feelings" but it would hurt sales. Or that it could only sue other corporations, and not any individual who was responsible for similar libel??

I do agree that only real individuals, and not corporations, unions, nor other collectives, should be allowed to donate to political parties.

You all need to read "The Empire of Illusion: The Death of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle" (Chris Hedges, Nation Press, 2009) to see the extent to which corporations own this country and how stupid Americans have enabled them to do so. Until Americans stop re-electing greedy moneygrubbers who are beholden to corporations and stop being greedy themselves and learn how to think on their own instead of letting corporations think for them, we are doomed. Oh, never mind. Stay tuned for "American Idle." (ERROR INTENTIONAL, IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING.)

justme says

My guess is that what you mean is that you want to outlaw is the concept of “limited liability”, where people (owners) can hide behind a corporation and in some sense avoid personal responsibility.

Justme,

I hope he answers you, I want to see where you are going with this.

In my opinion, the "Corporation" shields from financial liability. It is not supposed to shield individuals from criminal decisions made in the name of the company. Trouble is, lawyers would rather have "punative damages" than lock up a crook.

Also, listen to corporate language, how dehumanizing, patronizing, and scripted it is. Talk to one of those clones over the Internet or in India to find out how un-human these "people" are. Read those disclaimers. It is tangled legalese designed to confuse you into submission (you can't use this unless you agree to our terms). Corporations are about control, pure and simple. I try to resist as much as I can. Personally, I never would be caught dead shopping at Walmart or Target (cheap commie crap mostly, no thanks), eating at a fast-food chain (it is poison; stop eating it for three weeks and try it again; you will become ill), buying anything made in China (difficult and sometimes costly, but doable and good for your soul, if you have one left). OK, gasoline is a tough one. There, nothing will change because that is ultimate control (sorry, but I refuse to pay $25K-plus for one of those "green" cars, or for ANY car for that matter). One can live untethered if one tries. But too many out there are just plain lazy robots.

chrisborden says

I never would be caught dead shopping at Walmart or Target (cheap commie crap mostly, no thanks), eating at a fast-food chain (it is poison; stop eating it for three weeks and try it again; you will become ill), buying anything made in China (difficult and sometimes costly, but doable and good for your soul, if you have one left). OK, gasoline is a tough one. There, nothing will change because that is ultimate control (sorry, but I refuse to pay $25K-plus for one of those “green” cars, or for ANY car for that matter).

Sounds like you have used your consumer freedom of choice quite well, as anyone can.

I rarely eat fast food (I am married to a good cook, only real reason to get married), but every once in a while I get a KFC craving. After eating the KFC, I get a blah stomach feeling that keeps the cravings away for a while.

"Corporations are a legal entity, just like a person. In fact, the word “Corporation” means “embodiment.”"

Thats fine, but they should have a separate classification (super entity?) with a separate set of rights.

toneks83 says

Thats fine, but they should have a separate classification (super entity?) with a separate set of rights.

Yes, they do. Not a "super" set of rights, but a tailored set of rights, such as the ability to enter contracts, borrow funds, hire employees, etc.

Anyone, corporation or not, can do those things. I mean more along the lines of the following:
I dont believe that corporations should be legally equal to individuals, corporations can't hold arbitration w/ individuals only other companies, corporations can't sue individuals for more than a lifetimes worth of work, #s 2,3, and 4 from bdrasin's post.

HeadSet says

bdrasin says

I agree with the top post. Specifically, I believe that corporations:

1) Should not have the right to sue individuals for libel/slander.

A major news network broadcasts a “60 Minutes Show” stages a side impact crash with a GM pickup truck showing how easily the truck bursts into flames. It is discovered that a model rocket motor and an accelerant were used to cause the spectacular burst into flames. (This is true).
GM should not be able to sue for slander? Something like that would not “hurt feelings” but it would hurt sales. Or that it could only sue other corporations, and not any individual who was responsible for similar libel??

Yes, I did mean corporations should not be allowed to sue individuals for libel. Corp-on-corp libel is a different matter, although I think this should be restricted to real damages alone because, like you say, corporations do not have feelings to be hurt.

Headset, that comment was sunshine! :)

Princess,

>>I just don’t want them to be legally classified as people.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Corporations are not "classified as people". Which law classifies corporations as "people"? As Headset says, they are legal entities that have some commonality with real persons in terms of right to enter into contracts and so on, but that's about it.

Musing mode on:

Come to think of it, it is great that corporations are not classified as people. They do not have any human rights, for example. That means we can waterboard them, or place them in stress positions, until they pay up their bailout money.
Yeah, that;s the ticket ;-). Now if only corporations could feel pain, that would work great.

Back to serious mode, and not to Princess in particular:

This discussion severely lacks rigor. Please define the the terms that are being used.

Headset,

>> I hope he answers you, I want to see where you are going with this.

Well, I'm not sure I had a grand plan. For starters, I just wanted to understand what the heck the thread author is talking about.

I think we are starting to get somewhere on what all this is supposed to mean.

Corporations should not have the right to life, liberty, justice and the pursuit of corporate happiness?

Corporations should not have a vote in elections (not that they really have, but they do indirectly via monetary contributions)?

Corporations should not be awarded damages for pain and suffering (not that I think they are)?

etc etc etc

Chrisborden,

>>Until Americans stop re-electing greedy moneygrubbers who are beholden to corporations and stop being greedy themselves and learn how to think on their own instead of letting corporations think for them, we are doomed.

I'll repeat what I said at the end of the previous thread. Our problem (in the US) is essentially one of a defective political framework. Specifically that the constitution does not spell out in detail an election system that will prevent corporations from running the country. Since parties do not really have to compete for votes, they will compete for money instead, and the result is that the corporations runs everything.

-----

>>Campaign finance reform would probably help.

Sure, campaign reform is great, but the real solution is to have a proper *election* system that provides for real competition between, and accountability of, the political parties.

Competition is the only way to make the parties accountable to the voters. As long as there is a party duo-poly, there is no way we will get anything better than “the lesser of two evils”.

When parties need not compete for voters, they will instead compete for money, which is how we got into the current state of political dysfunction in the US.

I'd love to treat corporations exactly like we treat citizens. That way, when one of them is responsible for someone's death we can have them executed.

I understand the tongue-in-cheek, but what does it mean to execute a corporation :-) ?

Or how do you put a corporation in jail, for that sake?

OK, gasoline is a tough one.
Actually, that should be one of the easier ones. Buy an old Mercedes diesel and locally source biodiesel or WVO (waste vegetable oil).
Regarding corporate personhood; read the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution and substitute corporation for person. You should, at least, feel a bit short of breath and need to sit down for a moment.

Yes, the specific topic I was trying to address is the rights that a Corp has. And I specifically was looking for like minded individuals to share their thoughts about it.

Why does a non-corporeal entity have 1st amendment rights?

What could a corporation say politically that can not be expresses by its employees and investors individually?

Sorry, I cant write a lot now, I'm very busy.

But lets try and find out what we can agree on pertaining to this topic, and then maybe discuss ways for the people to make it happen.

Why does a non-corporeal entity have 1st amendment rights?

What could a corporation say politically that can not be expresses by its employees and investors individually?

let me begin by saying that i hate corporations...but they are a necessary evil.
The problem with completely shutting thier voices OFF from the political process is that capitalism will take a big hit.
Since the working class are always the majority and the corporations and its investors are always a minority, they don't have much say if each investor just has only one vote.The majority would never want the incessant need to produce and consume like what we do today.US will become like one of the socialist european countries.I am all for it..but i don't know if US will still be no.1 with that system.

US has been like the alpha male who works hard and produces a lot and is always on the top . he sacrifices the quality of life for success.Other countries are like the guys who report to the alpha male and are much content with where they are and have better work/life balance.which one do you prefer?

The current system makes US very aggressive since the growth hungry corporate world has a very big say in the govt...once you mute them, the driving force and policies would be only from the masses who are generally lazy and want a easy life.

I personally prefer to shuff the megaphone of corps for good but how many others would want that ? the current system where the country represents the will of the greedy and ambitious, is what defines US in many ways.

If Corps don't have any say :
Who would fight for 1) globalization 2) outsourcing stuff to other countries and keeping the citizens on thier toes
3) H1B's 4) making everything business friendly first then anything else 5) blocking all actions which can hamper bussinesses 6) Big Oil and wars for OIL ..etc
In essence , the fact that corps rule the country make our country a giant money making machine ! We as a country have GDP growth as our highest priority. Thats one reason we are very successful in some ways.The legal system and framework is setup to make everything business friendly and to increase production ( anti competitive laws..etc)
We are also a democracy so that brings some balance to the greed otherwise the corps will chop the citizens and sell them for meat in international markets. We are like a well crafted machine ..perfectly balanced vehicle with a the driving force of greed and the steering wheel of democracy.it has worked perfectly till now for a reason...we just need to tune it a bit not design from scratch. Looks like the right mix of capitalism , freedom and democracy is what is needed to make any country successful.

>>Since the working class are always the majority and the corporations and its investors are always a minority,

Well, one vote per person is what democracy is all about. Nevertheless, the corporations seem to have no problem getting a large portion of the population to vote aginst its own self-interest.

homeowner_for ever_san jose says

If Corps don’t have any say :

Who would fight for 1) globalization 2) outsourcing stuff to other countries and keeping the citizens on thier toes

3) H1B’s 4) making everything business friendly first then anything else 5) blocking all actions which can hamper bussinesses 6) Big Oil and wars for OIL ..etc

Here is who would fight for all these

1) If globalization benefits the majority, they will.
2) If outsourcing benefits the majority, they will
3) if bringing in H1B's benefits the majority, they will.
and so on.

Your entire argument is simply thus .."Choices should be made on one criteria -- whatever provides net benefits to the small minority that owns corporations is right"

There is a name for that - oligarchy.

No choice here is without some benefit to everyone - For eg., take globalization. I see prices of some items fall because of that. This benefits me to some extent. But if my wages fall more than that, then I am a net loser from globalization.

The problem with globalization is that a few have big net gains, and the majority have considerable net loses. In a democracy, such a choice will not be made.

This does not mean globalization should not or would not happen - the advocates for globalization would have to devise mechanisms which would spread the benefits more evenly.

http://kanyelicious.appspot.com/http://patrick.net/

Speaking of citizens that I don't like, What is up with this?

Woah, that's weird. Doesn't seem to diss me to bad though.

thenuttyneutron says

http://kanyelicious.appspot.com/http://patrick.net/
Speaking of citizens that I don’t like, What is up with this?

That cracked me up.

thunderlips11 says

Fantastic Post! If H-1B visas actually benefitted the majority, that is, if the high costs of salaries due to low labor supplies made IT products and services ludicrously expensive, then the public would demand it.
Thanks for this!

Current H1B visa program is open to a lot of abuse. It should not be used as a "pain killer" to aleviate short term problem.
H1B visa program should be reformed to allow only highly skilled foreigners to immigrate to USA. High IT costs could be reduced by having more US citizens/residents involved. Corporations should be forced to pay much higher fees for H1B visa holders - and the money should go solely towards scholarships for US citizens. For example, if a corporation had to pay one year tuition (at a top 10% national university) for each H1B visa holder - only those foreigners who could justify such cost would be hired.
At the same time, we should relax the requirement and allow those foreigners who complete their graduate school (in technical or medical field) in the USA to be eligible for permanent residency. Instead of allowing poor of the world to crush our borders, we should look for ways to make USA more competitive on global level.

A corporation considered as an individual behaves like a SOCIOPATH.

Removing the legal fiction of "personhood" would be a step towards normalizing historical relations. People act like this is the natural order when it isn't. For much of US history including many of it's most dynamic BUSINESS periods corporations did not have this in place. Would removing it mean the end of the corporation? No.

The corporation considers you only as a CONSUMER UNIT and thus the phrase CONSUMER has crept into their media, and thus yours at every turn. How many times do you find friends using the word CONSUMER when CITIZEN would work as well? We need to return the FREE CITIZEN to primacy in this country.