4 ms·
Corporations are not people - that's commons sense - and by allowing them the rights enjoyed by human beings, it gives shareholders a compounded right to influe
by danielnicollet 16y ago
Corporations are not people - that's commons sense - and by allowing them the rights enjoyed by human beings, it gives shareholders a compounded right to influence government:
- through their own human vote,
- through the power lobbying, which allows them to not only influence votes in congress but even to initiate legislative cycles with laws which are usually written by a lobbyist or a former lobbyist in the staff of a congressman.
Excuse my tone, but please wake up people! I am ready to do something about it beyond voting (some sort of activism). Are you?
- rosser 16y agoCorporations are not people The US Supreme Court has a slightly different opinion on that question.
- danielnicollet 16y agoSo what? The supreme court sometimes doesn't agree with me. And sometimes the supreme court changes its mind. Do you take all the supreme court says for an absolute and intangible truth. The supreme court hears cases because it does think it needs to be consulted and it does think it desserves to keep building common law on the basis of new cases. I made mine above. My case, that is ;-)
- dctoedt 16y agoTry a thought experiment: Imagine that "Google Inc." had no legal meaning except as a convenient identifier for a collection of individuals -- viz., Google's stockholders -- acting in concert. A) Should Congress be able to restrict the right of those people to hire professional advocates to petition Congress for the redress of their (real or imagined) grievances? How would a "no" answer be reconciled with the First Amendment passage quoted above? B) If yes, should the shareholders have the right to vote to designate some of their number -- viz., Google's board of directors -- to decide what specific policies will be advocated on behalf of the shareholders?
- _delirium 16y agoI could imagine a "yes" answer that still restricts what a specific legal organization can do. For example, the collection of individuals behind "Google, Inc." could hire a professional political advocate... but perhaps they wouldn't be allowed to do so via the specific legal vehicle "Google Inc.", which is only chartered by the state to serve particular commercial purposes. The individuals would remain free to take up collections for their lobbying efforts outside the framework of that specific legal entity.
- ericd 16y agoIt's not just a collection of people, though - almost all of its power is concentrated in the hands of an extremely small number of people, who can force everyone to act in concert according to their own will.
- arvinjoar 16y agoSo if a group of people have voluntarily agreed to incorporate, could that be called force, ever? I don't see how a "small number of people" can "force everyone to act in concert" when they have voluntarily incorporated i.e. allocated some of their capital or labor to some other party.
- ericd 16y agoThe executives determine the entire direction of the company. The people at the bottom are generally there to make a livelihood, not to endorse the political ideas of those at the top. A decision by those executives should not be considered the will of that entire company, for political purposes.
- danielnicollet 16y agoI agree 200%. If anyone thinks that corporate governance has anything of a democracy, they've missed the point. I actually think that corporations must not be democracies. It's a good thing that they are somewhat authoritarian because modern democracies are not efficient enough and too bureaucratic for many economic activities. On the other hand some societal issues are too morally essential to be run by authoritarian corporate rulers. That's exactly why I want these people out of politics. Right now they have way to much political clout through lobbying.