The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Al68]

Aside - why not "if the budget requires large cuts in spending then so be it"? Tax increases can't come close to closing the deficit. Spending has got to be slashed. There is no other option.

Where's the "sign pointing up that says 'fiscal conservative'" smiley when you need it?

Can we use this:
[URL]http://www.beautifulclipart.com/clipart/arrows/arrow1.gif[/URL]
[PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/customavatars/avatar9551_1.gif

 

[CRGreathouse]

Actually, I'm not convinced turbo-1 is a fiscal conservative, at least the way the term is generally used. But he doesn't seem to discuss his own political views (see post #232), so I'm content to let that matter drop.

 

[Al68]

Actually, I'm not convinced turbo-1 is a fiscal conservative, at least the way the term is generally used.

LOL. That was intended as friendly sarcasm. :!)

But he doesn't seem to discuss his own political views...

LOL. Yeah, me either.

 

[Galteeth]

A good thing to watch is the gold market:

http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au75-pres.gif


And watch for reports like this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Home-sales-plunge-27-pct-to-apf-2949326144.html?x=0

Yeah my dad thought I was stupid for cashing out my mixed portfolio in early 2008 and buying gold at 900 plus some asian stocks. He was a financial adviser and all. He lost over half of what he had, and I made money. I sold the gold awhile ago, and I doubt it can go much higher in the short term, I am just worried the second part of the double dip is on the way.

 

[Galteeth]

The choice seems pretty clear to me at this point: either fiscal stimulus or fiscal stimulus. First the money gets spent by creating a debt. Then taxes are cut to stimulate businesses to work for the stimulus money. Will the government ever allow the free market to decide for itself how much to spend or not spend? Apparently not. Can capitalism survive without government intervention? Maybe not. Will cutting taxes prevent future stimulus? Probably not. Is it disturbing that bailouts were followed by spending and that businesses are now clamoring to keep more of the money for themselves after needing to be bailed out last time? I wonder what others think? To me it seems like endless artificial resuscitation of a failed economic vision. Still, it seems that even while ppl are complaining about printing money, they're still insisting that they should be able to keep more of it once it ends up in their pockets. Why don't ppl who disagree with the stimulus just refuse to work for printed money?

Because once that happens you're royally screwed.

 

[Galteeth]

I had a 10% cut, which has recently been restored. Woo-hoo, one look at my paycheck and it's 2008 again.

I don't know where you shop that you see lots of shoppers, I see the opposite. Sparse crowds, light traffic, plenty of parking. Oh, and *lots* of vacant store fronts.

It's funny. If you think about economy not just from a numbers side, but as the actual activities, a lot of the things we're seeing seem necessary, or desirable.

For example, and endless increase in the number of cars is neither desirable nor sustainable. One might think we need fewer cars being produced. After all, oil consumption and carbon emissions and all that. But the car companies are going to go out of business, and suddenly the government and everybody else agrees that we MUST keep making cars. Yes, yes, I understand the reasons,... short term economic reasons, which would have left a lot of people unemployed. But wouldn't it be better to have them unemployed and just say, get government checks, then build things nobody wants which are actually destroying the planet?

It's funny. People talk about how we need to reduce consumption and all that. But when it actually happens, people can't deal.

 

[SixNein]

It's not the cost of living raises, it's people getting huge pay cuts just to stay employed. Last year I had three 20% paycuts. 20% off, then 20% off that and then 20% off that, all within 5 months. The company said the legal department said it was legal since our contracts said that changes could be made at any time for any reason.

I think this trend has become a common practice everywhere.

On a side note, look at the historic value of the dollar and compare it to your current situation.

 

[SixNein]

The choice seems pretty clear to me at this point: either fiscal stimulus or fiscal stimulus. First the money gets spent by creating a debt. Then taxes are cut to stimulate businesses to work for the stimulus money. Will the government ever allow the free market to decide for itself how much to spend or not spend? Apparently not. Can capitalism survive without government intervention? Maybe not. Will cutting taxes prevent future stimulus? Probably not. Is it disturbing that bailouts were followed by spending and that businesses are now clamoring to keep more of the money for themselves after needing to be bailed out last time? I wonder what others think? To me it seems like endless artificial resuscitation of a failed economic vision. Still, it seems that even while ppl are complaining about printing money, they're still insisting that they should be able to keep more of it once it ends up in their pockets. Why don't ppl who disagree with the stimulus just refuse to work for printed money?

Honestly, I think most of our problems come down to one major flaw in the structure of the government. Corporate charters should have been a federal power instead of a state power, and those charters should have been very explicit that corporations are not allowed to participate in the political process and doing so would be a criminal offense. There should have been a wall of separation between the public and private. Because such a wall was never defined, the public and private merged in many negative ways. I think this merger is the core of our problems and has been for a very long time.

I suppose there is one philosophical stance that many Americans take that I find disturbing. Some people argue that corporations are equal to that of individuals instead of an abstraction created out of law. These corporations have rights equal to that of a human being. But I disagree strongly with this view, and I disagree strongly with the current and past course of the judicial system on this issue. I think it increases the already existing blur between private and public.

Anyway, on the topic of currency your raised. The problems with currency will be present no matter if money is traded in gold, silver, rocks, beads, or paper. Currency of any form is artificial and is subject to all kinds of problems and even possible manipulations. People have to accept these issues and move on or go back to some kind of barter system. And I don't think anyone wants to go back to barter unless they want to have a very dramatic change in lifestyle.

Side Note:
I hope my comment makes sense, I've been up so long that I'm *high*.

 

[SixNein]

I hear so many stories like this yet I somehow still have the idea that there are people who are either maintaining consistent salary levels or even getting raises. Why do I have this impression? Also, whenever I go shopping the stores seem to be quite busy. How does the economy continue to generate this level of consumption when so many ppl are weathering budget cuts?

I would call it a balance sheet recession. The liabilities are still there, but the assets are dwindling.

 

[turbo]

Let's have a little primer on fiscal conservatism, shall we? The money that the Fed lends is OUR money. It belongs to us taxpayers. For a long time now, the Fed has kept prime lending rates artificially low, so that Wall Street has unfettered access to OUR money so they can speculate with it. Wall Street is paying us practically nothing for the free access to OUR money. (Have I emphasized that enough to break through the neo-con fog?) Our government is taking OUR money and funneling it to Wall Street so that Wall Street does not have to compete for investments and pay fair interest rates to us or to our government. The US taxpayer is not getting a fair return on OUR money. And the US taxpayers that have been wise enough to save for the future are getting no interest on their savings because the banks can get practically free money from the Fed and don't have to compete for our savings.

If Wall Street cannot survive without free access to taxpayer money, it does not deserve to exist in its present state, and businesses should be allowed to fail or trim down until they can survive profitably. Corporate welfare is not fiscal conservatism - it is a blind drive toward oligarchy, which is espoused by both of our major political parties.

 

[Galteeth]

Honestly, I think most of our problems come down to one major flaw in the structure of the government. Corporate charters should have been a federal power instead of a state power, and those charters should have been very explicit that corporations are not allowed to participate in the political process and doing so would be a criminal offense. There should have been a wall of separation between the public and private. Because such a wall was never defined, the public and private merged in many negative ways. I think this merger is the core of our problems and has been for a very long time.

I suppose there is one philosophical stance that many Americans take that I find disturbing. Some people argue that corporations are equal to that of individuals instead of an abstraction created out of law. These corporations have rights equal to that of a human being. But I disagree strongly with this view, and I disagree strongly with the current and past course of the judicial system on this issue. I think it increases the already existing blur between private and public.

Anyway, on the topic of currency your raised. The problems with currency will be present no matter if money is traded in gold, silver, rocks, beads, or paper. Currency of any form is artificial and is subject to all kinds of problems and even possible manipulations. People have to accept these issues and move on or go back to some kind of barter system. And I don't think anyone wants to go back to barter unless they want to have a very dramatic change in lifestyle.

Side Note:
I hope my comment makes sense, I've been up so long that I'm *high*.

Separation of public and private? Not sure what you mean there. I don't see how making a corporate charter a federal function would change things.

 

[brainstorm]

I suppose there is one philosophical stance that many Americans take that I find disturbing. Some people argue that corporations are equal to that of individuals instead of an abstraction created out of law. These corporations have rights equal to that of a human being. But I disagree strongly with this view, and I disagree strongly with the current and past course of the judicial system on this issue. I think it increases the already existing blur between private and public.

It's not that common for ppl to overcome self-interest in the political positions they take or defend. People defend corporate protections because they see economic benefit in it. When they for whatever reason experience detriment as a result of the same corporate protections, they will argue vehemently against them. The central issue is that corporate activity is rendered so powerful in either direction. Corporatism itself is a way of sacrificing varying amounts of individual independence for coordination into networked power and, imo, should be checked and balanced like any other form of power in a democratic republic.

This could be done by holding individuals accountable for their corporate actions, but imagine how much political resistance you would get if you pursued such a political platform. In fact, I think one of the main reasons ppl create corporate entities in the first place is to shield themselves from liability as individuals. So why would anyone want to give up that power?

 

[SixNein]

Separation of public and private? Not sure what you mean there. I don't see how making a corporate charter a federal function would change things.

I mean the government and business.

If charters are left at the state level, all 50 states are in competition and pressure to water the charters down in order to attract businesses. If you take the time to look up the history of charters, they were much different than modern day charters.

The federal level needs to clean up its definition of 'person' in the 14th amendment. Corporations have successfully argued that 'person' includes corporations. I simply do not see what the judges were thinking here. This is one case of by the letter of law being very very different than by the spirit of law.

 

[mheslep]

Let's have a little primer on fiscal conservatism, shall we? The money that the Fed lends is OUR money. It belongs to us taxpayers. For a long time now, the Fed has kept prime lending rates artificially low, so that Wall Street has unfettered access to OUR money so they can speculate with it. Wall Street is paying us practically nothing for the free access to OUR money. ...

Validity of these complaints aside for a moment, you are confusing monetary and fiscal policy. The above refers completely to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy" .

 

[SixNein]

It's not that common for ppl to overcome self-interest in the political positions they take or defend. People defend corporate protections because they see economic benefit in it. When they for whatever reason experience detriment as a result of the same corporate protections, they will argue vehemently against them. The central issue is that corporate activity is rendered so powerful in either direction. Corporatism itself is a way of sacrificing varying amounts of individual independence for coordination into networked power and, imo, should be checked and balanced like any other form of power in a democratic republic.

And the lack of checks and balances effects the liberty of people in many ways. For example, because corporations are now seen as constitutionally protected individuals, they are able to participate in the political process. How can individuals compete with corporate money in the political process? So I would argue that such powers really undermines the framework of the constitution.

This could be done by holding individuals accountable for their corporate actions, but imagine how much political resistance you would get if you pursued such a political platform. In fact, I think one of the main reasons ppl create corporate entities in the first place is to shield themselves from liability as individuals. So why would anyone want to give up that power?

I think corporations need protection from civil liabilities in order to encourage new businesses to develop; however, I think they need strict corporate charters, no constitutional rights, and no criminal protections.

If corporations are granted constitutional rights, slack charters, and criminal protections, I think it changes the form of government into a plutocracy.

 

[brainstorm]

And the lack of checks and balances effects the liberty of people in many ways. For example, because corporations are now seen as constitutionally protected individuals, they are able to participate in the political process. How can individuals compete with corporate money in the political process? So I would argue that such powers really undermines the framework of the constitution.

I don't know if you're thinking in terms of what corporatism is at the most radical level, i.e. individuals coordinating their activities in various ways. So I don't see why the fact that a corporation is recognized as an independent entity for legal purposes makes "it" any more effective politically. Ultimately, the power of incorporation lies in individuals coordinating their activities - if they do this outside of work because they are voting, contributing, rallying, etc. in the interest of their employer, how would that be different from saying that the corporation acts as an individual directly?

I have studied the ideology of corporatism for a long time and as far as I can tell it comes down to a certain legal status that allows individuals to attribute their actions to the corporation instead of themselves. Second, incorporation is achieved in practice by organization, coordination, and delegation of activities in ways that enhance the ability of individuals beyond what they would be able to achieve without corporate support. In principle, ppl can coordinate their activities in this way without a form corporate charter or legal designation. Essentially it is just an individual orientation to economic participation and the legal conventions that institutionalize and formalize it.

I think corporations need protection from civil liabilities in order to encourage new businesses to develop; however, I think they need strict corporate charters, no constitutional rights, and no criminal protections.

This is a bizarre concept. You basically want to allow government to intervene in corporate activities without any restrictions? Or do you want a parallel set of laws and rights for corporations that is separate and distinct than those of individuals? Also, how can you limit corporate liability without limiting the rights and freedoms of individuals by doing so? Also, I would venture to say that the problem isn't so much the legal status corporate entities as it is the fact that legal proceedings can be used in other ways than the expedient pursuit of justice. Corporatism allows large numbers of individuals to pool their resources and hire teams of attorneys to come up with multiple tiers of strategies that make litigation more like war than anything else.

Really, I think the corporate approach anything has effects that are as detrimental as the benefits. Like any other form of power, both benefits and detriments are intensified. I think people would be generally better off living and interacting as individuals without corporate organization, but many aspects of modern life would not be possible without some form of organized cooperation. So the question is how to allow that to occur while discouraging over-utilization. How do you get individuals to act alone except where truly necessary?

If corporations are granted constitutional rights, slack charters, and criminal protections, I think it changes the form of government into a plutocracy.

Don't assume that higher status people in corporate organizations actually have all the power. I think it was the sociologist Bourdieu who pointed out that climbing the ranks within a pyramid organization requires individuals to conform more and more to the expectations of others in the organization. By the time they reach "the top," they are highly restricted in how much they can deviate from expected behavior. They may have a little leeway but if they exercise too much freedom they can lose credibility and their colleagues will seek to discipline or replace them.

 

[Al68]

I think corporations need protection from civil liabilities in order to encourage new businesses to develop; however, I think they need strict corporate charters, no constitutional rights, and no criminal protections.

This has been covered extensively in other threads, but corporate personhood provides no protection for anyone, stockholder, manager, or employee, from criminal prosecution for any crime they commit. It also provides no protection for them being sued for any wrongful acts they are responsible for.

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that allows the entity of a corporation to be named as a defendant in a lawsuit, a party to a contract, etc. But the corporate entity is just acting as agent for its stockholders. It doesn't have its own money, or anything else, in any other sense.

And a corporation's "rights" doesn't actually refer to any rights of the corporation itself, that doesn't even make sense logically. The corporation is just an agent for real people, and exercises their rights by proxy.

There should have been a wall of separation between the public and private.

Uhh, this would prevent any government from exercising any power over corporate charters at all. Or over any private business for that matter. Did you convert to libertarianism?

 

[SixNein]

It doesn't have its own money, or anything else, in any other sense.

Corporations have their own money and assets. In fact, if individuals mix their personal incomes with corporate incomes, they could lose limited liability protection.

http://community2.business.gov/t5/The-Industry-Word/Three-Ways-to-Lose-Personal-Liability-Protection-And-What-to-Do/ba-p/12558

This has been covered extensively in other threads, but corporate personhood provides no protection for anyone, stockholder, manager, or employee, from criminal prosecution for any crime they commit.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/070327washingtondc.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/09/02/Pfizer.fine/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/criminal/highlights/2009/ca-shellfish-co-04-13-09.pdf

And a corporation's "rights" doesn't actually refer to any rights of the corporation itself, that doesn't even make sense logically.

What if a corporation enjoys a major investment from a foreign entity such as a person or government, how do you extend your argument to such a case? Do you believe a foreign entity has the right to participate in our domestic political process?

I think it makes perfect sense. The entire concept of a corporation is about the separation between the individual and the business. In a basic nutshell, my argument is that corporate personhood should be limited to conducting business. If the individual wants to be political, allow him or her to participate with his or her own money.

 

[SixNein]

I don't know if you're thinking in terms of what corporatism is at the most radical level, i.e. individuals coordinating their activities in various ways. So I don't see why the fact that a corporation is recognized as an independent entity for legal purposes makes "it" any more effective politically. Ultimately, the power of incorporation lies in individuals coordinating their activities - if they do this outside of work because they are voting, contributing, rallying, etc. in the interest of their employer, how would that be different from saying that the corporation acts as an individual directly?

Corporate money comes from national and even international investors, and these investors may or may not have these rights on the individual level. What about a resident in Texas effecting the state government in New York through a corporation? Bear in mind that there are corporations with larger economies then many individual states.

I have studied the ideology of corporatism for a long time and as far as I can tell it comes down to a certain legal status that allows individuals to attribute their actions to the corporation instead of themselves. Second, incorporation is achieved in practice by organization, coordination, and delegation of activities in ways that enhance the ability of individuals beyond what they would be able to achieve without corporate support. In principle, ppl can coordinate their activities in this way without a form corporate charter or legal designation. Essentially it is just an individual orientation to economic participation and the legal conventions that institutionalize and formalize it.

I think this may be true only in the case of private closely held corporations.

This is a bizarre concept. You basically want to allow government to intervene in corporate activities without any restrictions? Or do you want a parallel set of laws and rights for corporations that is separate and distinct than those of individuals? Also, how can you limit corporate liability without limiting the rights and freedoms of individuals by doing so? Also, I would venture to say that the problem isn't so much the legal status corporate entities as it is the fact that legal proceedings can be used in other ways than the expedient pursuit of justice. Corporatism allows large numbers of individuals to pool their resources and hire teams of attorneys to come up with multiple tiers of strategies that make litigation more like war than anything else.

Intervene? I'm just arguing that the corporate person-hood should be limited to conducting business.

How is lobbying or influencing races any different than what you are describing?

Really, I think the corporate approach anything has effects that are as detrimental as the benefits. Like any other form of power, both benefits and detriments are intensified. I think people would be generally better off living and interacting as individuals without corporate organization, but many aspects of modern life would not be possible without some form of organized cooperation. So the question is how to allow that to occur while discouraging over-utilization. How do you get individuals to act alone except where truly necessary?

If corporate persons were limited to business activities, owners could still participate in the political process as individuals or even assemble into a group of individuals; however, they would be doing so on their own funds and not the funds of others as they are currently doing through the corporate setting.

 

[brainstorm]

If corporate persons were limited to business activities, owners could still participate in the political process as individuals or even assemble into a group of individuals; however, they would be doing so on their own funds and not the funds of others as they are currently doing through the corporate setting.

What's the difference between pooling funds as individuals and doing the same thing through corporate investment? I think the only difference is legal status, protections (limited liability), and contractual obligations with regards to how corporate activities are regulated. If you would take individuals as atoms in a free market, corporatism would be akin to monarchies that established discipline and cooperation among the individuals who become "subjects" of corporate policy and payroll. Without corporate sovereignty, individuals would have to compete and cooperate voluntarily instead of based on contractual obligations and rewards.

 

[SixNein]

What's the difference between pooling funds as individuals and doing the same thing through corporate investment?

Here is another side effect that may explain the difference better:

Lets say you go out and buy stocks in the company x. Company x funds the swift boat campaign during the 2004 election through a organization that does not disclose its sources of funding. Let us also say that you are opposed to the swift boat ad, and you feel it is in your best interest to have John Kerry elected. In this situation, part of the money you have invested in company x has been used to fund the swift boat ad against your political interest; however, you are unable to obtain sources for funding and have no way to obtain knowledge that your funds have been used to pay for the advertisements.

Do you think this situation should be legitimate?

 

[brainstorm]

Here is another side effect that may explain the difference better:

Lets say you go out and buy stocks in the company x. Company x funds the swift boat campaign during the 2004 election through a organization that does not disclose its sources of funding. Let us also say that you are opposed to the swift boat ad, and you feel it is in your best interest to have John Kerry elected. In this situation, part of the money you have invested in company x has been used to fund the swift boat ad against your political interest; however, you are unable to obtain sources for funding and have no way to obtain knowledge that your funds have been used to pay for the advertisements.

Ok, now translate that to an informal corporate-type situation involving only voluntary individual cooperation: A number of individuals make components that work together, which they sell to each other for assembly into final products. These people communicate and discuss how a particular political candidate is willing to introduce legislation that promotes their business interests. These people share this information, in turn, with their friends who lend them money to purchase parts and tools for their business activities. All these people have the choice not to support this political campaign, but they do it anyway because they want their product to grow and become more profitable.

In your situation, the corporate controllers spend the investors money on the campaign. In my example, the individual business people could borrow money or ask for more money in advance from their clients to get enough money to support the campaign. The big difference is that in the free-individual scenario, individuals must manage their own funds and political contributions - while in the corporate scenario, central agents can pool funds and make contributions out of the pool.

Maybe a better way to explain it is the difference between a couple being married or informally committed. An informally committed couple can behave in most of the same ways that a formally married couple can. Likewise, a formally married couple can behave either by coordinating their activities or simply lead uncoordinated lives as individuals. The point is that corporatism is not about a legal status, but rather about a mode of individual coordination with other individuals. Certain legal instruments facilitate this in some ways, but nothing prevents unincorporated individuals from coordinating their political activities on the basis of common business interests, for better or worse.

 

[SixNein]

Ok, now translate that to an informal corporate-type situation involving only voluntary individual cooperation: A number of individuals make components that work together, which they sell to each other for assembly into final products. These people communicate and discuss how a particular political candidate is willing to introduce legislation that promotes their business interests. These people share this information, in turn, with their friends who lend them money to purchase parts and tools for their business activities. All these people have the choice not to support this political campaign, but they do it anyway because they want their product to grow and become more profitable.

In your situation, the corporate controllers spend the investors money on the campaign. In my example, the individual business people could borrow money or ask for more money in advance from their clients to get enough money to support the campaign. The big difference is that in the free-individual scenario, individuals must manage their own funds and political contributions - while in the corporate scenario, central agents can pool funds and make contributions out of the pool.

Maybe a better way to explain it is the difference between a couple being married or informally committed. An informally committed couple can behave in most of the same ways that a formally married couple can. Likewise, a formally married couple can behave either by coordinating their activities or simply lead uncoordinated lives as individuals. The point is that corporatism is not about a legal status, but rather about a mode of individual coordination with other individuals. Certain legal instruments facilitate this in some ways, but nothing prevents unincorporated individuals from coordinating their political activities on the basis of common business interests, for better or worse.

But in your salutation, the people were aware of the political campaign. In my situation, the people had no knowledge and was prevented from obtaining knowledge about such a campaign. I would go as far to say that a proper decision about investing is impossible to make without this knowledge. For example, a person has investments in 401k, and those investments are used to provide funding for campaigns that negatively impact the person by fighting worker safety, wages, and rights. Even if the investments themselves work, the person may still be negatively impacted.

 

[brainstorm]

But in your salutation, the people were aware of the political campaign. In my situation, the people had no knowledge and was prevented from obtaining knowledge about such a campaign. I would go as far to say that a proper decision about investing is impossible to make without this knowledge. For example, a person has investments in 401k, and those investments are used to provide funding for campaigns that negatively impact the person by fighting worker safety, wages, and rights. Even if the investments themselves work, the person may still be negatively impacted.

But that could still happen if corporations were fragmented into individuals. For example, imagine that instead of buying ipods from Apple or a retailer, they were distributed by individuals who bought them wholesale at a very low price and retailed them for what the demand curve sustains. Then these 'middlemen' communicated with each other about contributing to a certain politician who would support their business model. The consumers would ultimately be funding the political contributions, as they are in the case of publicly traded companies - and they would be doing so without realizing it as long as the independent dealers didn't talk to them about it. If these same dealers took money from "investors" who wished to get in on their profits, they could be doing the same thing with their money. It ultimately comes down to who's trusting who with their money, and what the people they trust are doing with it - whether or not those people are incorporated or independent. I'm not discounting the possibility that there are possible differences; but I think you're overlooking the possibility for corruption similar to that of corporatism occurring through informal cooperation of independent individuals/small-businesses.

 

[SixNein]

But that could still happen if corporations were fragmented into individuals. For example, imagine that instead of buying ipods from Apple or a retailer, they were distributed by individuals who bought them wholesale at a very low price and retailed them for what the demand curve sustains. Then these 'middlemen' communicated with each other about contributing to a certain politician who would support their business model. The consumers would ultimately be funding the political contributions, as they are in the case of publicly traded companies - and they would be doing so without realizing it as long as the independent dealers didn't talk to them about it. If these same dealers took money from "investors" who wished to get in on their profits, they could be doing the same thing with their money. It ultimately comes down to who's trusting who with their money, and what the people they trust are doing with it - whether or not those people are incorporated or independent. I'm not discounting the possibility that there are possible differences; but I think you're overlooking the possibility for corruption similar to that of corporatism occurring through informal cooperation of independent individuals/small-businesses.

I get your argument, but one is much more severe than the other. Although corruption may be impossible to eliminate, I do think we should make the attempt to limit it as much as possible.

 

[brainstorm]

I get your argument, but one is much more severe than the other. Although corruption may be impossible to eliminate, I do think we should make the attempt to limit it as much as possible.

I agree. I just think that many people fail to see corruption on both sides of the same coin because they assume that institutions are responsible for corruption instead of individuals. In this case, people blame corporations for the corruption when, in reality, corporatism is a general problem whether it is practiced as informal collaboration among individuals or institutionalized by them in corporate charters, legal status, laws, etc.

My point is you have to get to the very heart of the problem to solve it, which is that people sacrifice their independence for organized coordination and cooperation. I think if people would collude less, there would be less power to abuse - but this goes back to my original point, which is that as long as there is power available to be had, people will want to have it and use it as much as possible. You can try to regulate it, but they will just abuse the regulatory power as a means of further enhancing their corporate strength (finding legal loopholes, etc.)

 

[Al68]

Corporations have their own money and assets.

The owner of those assets and money is the stockholders. The corporation exercises those ownership rights by proxy.

In fact, if individuals mix their personal incomes with corporate incomes, they could lose limited liability protection.

The individuals never had limited liability protection for their individual finances to start with, so that's irrelevant to this point.

This has been covered extensively in other threads, but corporate personhood provides no protection for anyone, stockholder, manager, or employee, from criminal prosecution for any crime they commit.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/070327washingtondc.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/09/02/Pfizer.fine/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/criminal/highlights/2009/ca-shellfish-co-04-13-09.pdf

Why would you respond with three links to stories in which nobody was protected from criminal prosecution for their actions?

What if a corporation enjoys a major investment from a foreign entity such as a person or government, how do you extend your argument to such a case?

What argument? I just pointed out the reality of what a corporation is. It's not a person in the relevant sense here. It's a tool used by real people. The question is what rights do the real people using the tool have.

Do you believe a foreign entity has the right to participate in our domestic political process?

If you mean a real person, it depends on what you mean by "participate". I see no justification for restricting anyone's political speech, for example, because they aren't a U.S. citizen, as long as they aren't otherwise committing a crime such as fraud.

If you're referring to a corporation, again, asking if a corporation has political rights is like asking if a car has the right to run a stop sign. Like a car, a corporation is a tool used by people, and whether to allow a tool to be used for an action depends on what rights the tool's user has. It makes no sense to speak of the rights of a tool.

And what would seem to be obvious is that when people say that a corporation "committed a crime", in reality there is a real person that actually committed that crime, using the corporation as a tool. The person who uses the tool to commit a crime is the real criminal, not the tool itself. Like any tool, a corporation can be used for good or evil, but is not inherently good or evil itself.

And when people say a corporation has "rights", it's merely being used as a proxy (tool) to exercise its stockholders' rights.

In a basic nutshell, my argument is that corporate personhood should be limited to conducting business. If the individual wants to be political, allow him or her to participate with his or her own money.

If you're referring to political speech, the relevant question is whether a real person has the right to engage in free speech using a corporate entity as a tool. Whether the tool itself has free speech rights isn't a logical question to ask, and isn't literally what is meant by a corporation's "right to free speech".

 

[SixNein]

The owner of those assets and money is the stockholders.

But they can not touch those assets directly. They can sell their stocks to another interested buyer at some agreed upon price, but they can't just walk into the company and take whatever they want. They have a collective ownership instead of direct ownership.

Why would you respond with three links to stories in which nobody was protected from criminal prosecution for their actions? What argument?

These companies were all named as the defendants in criminal charges. The people who made the calls to commit the crimes did not get named.

I just pointed out the reality of what a corporation is. It's not a person in the relevant sense here. It's a tool used by real people. The question is what rights do the real people using the tool have.If you mean a real person, it depends on what you mean by "participate". I see no justification for restricting anyone's political speech, for example, because they aren't a U.S. citizen, as long as they aren't otherwise committing a crime such as fraud.

No, but the corporate sense of personhood has been growing. Do you not see any reason to limit such a sense of personhood? Would you support the rights of the republic of China to run political advertisements for your state senate race?

If you're referring to a corporation, again, asking if a corporation has political rights is like asking if a car has the right to run a stop sign. Like a car, a corporation is a tool used by people, and whether to allow a tool to be used for an action depends on what rights the tool's user has. It makes no sense to speak of the rights of a tool.

Perhaps you should read:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

And what would seem to be obvious is that when people say that a corporation "committed a crime", in reality there is a real person that actually committed that crime, using the corporation as a tool. The person who uses the tool to commit a crime is the real criminal, not the tool itself. Like any tool, a corporation can be used for good or evil, but is not inherently good or evil itself.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/corporate_criminality.html#Q3

And when people say a corporation has "rights", it's merely being used as a proxy (tool) to exercise its stockholders' rights. If you're referring to political speech, the relevant question is whether a real person has the right to engage in free speech using a corporate entity as a tool. Whether the tool itself has free speech rights isn't a logical question to ask, and isn't literally what is meant by a corporation's "right to free speech".

As I said above, not all of the individuals are under constitutional protection. Should we just allow all people of this planet receive constitutional protection and name them all as citizens? How about states? Should states allow everyone as well?

 

[brainstorm]

But they can not touch those assets directly. They can sell their stocks to another interested buyer at some agreed upon price, but they can't just walk into the company and take whatever they want. They have a collective ownership instead of direct ownership.

Share ownership is representational ownership, so "ownership" is a relative term. It's more like a simulation of ownership. In reality, corporatism works by delegated rights and responsibilities to everyone involved, including shareholders. By doing so, independent individual power is restricted, along with the ability to "own" anything directly.

No, but the corporate sense of personhood has been growing. Do you not see any reason to limit such a sense of personhood? Would you support the rights of the republic of China to run political advertisements for your state senate race?

What does "personhood" have to do with paying for advertising, political or otherwise? People pool money, resources, and power. Is it a good thing necessarily? No. Do they automatically become a single corporate unit or "person" when they do it? No, it's just a powerful metaphorical image for the functional effect of cooperation and coordination.

As I said above, not all of the individuals are under constitutional protection. Should we just allow all people of this planet receive constitutional protection and name them all as citizens? How about states? Should states allow everyone as well?

When did this go from being about corporatism to being about which people should be citizens and which shouldn't? What SHOULD be done is that "internal" corporate affairs should be subject to constitutional limitations. For example, it should not be possible to ignore basic rights of the accused when evaluating employees. Managers should have to notify an employee when that person is held accountable for something so they can defend themselves. Otherwise managers should not allow their suspicions or informal sense of a person to influence their treatment of that person. In other words, the constitution provides guidelines for respecting individuals rights and freedoms, and I don't see why these rights and freedoms should be abridged just because someone has entered into an employment contract.

 

[SixNein]

What does "personhood" have to do with paying for advertising, political or otherwise? People pool money, resources, and power. Is it a good thing necessarily? No. Do they automatically become a single corporate unit or "person" when they do it? No, it's just a powerful metaphorical image for the functional effect of cooperation and coordination.

By personhood, I'm referring to the legal powers such corporations are granted.

When did this go from being about corporatism to being about which people should be citizens and which shouldn't? What SHOULD be done is that "internal" corporate affairs should be subject to constitutional limitations. For example, it should not be possible to ignore basic rights of the accused when evaluating employees. Managers should have to notify an employee when that person is held accountable for something so they can defend themselves. Otherwise managers should not allow their suspicions or informal sense of a person to influence their treatment of that person. In other words, the constitution provides guidelines for respecting individuals rights and freedoms, and I don't see why these rights and freedoms should be abridged just because someone has entered into an employment contract.

By the 14th amendment, companies started in the United States become citizens with constitutional protection. I suppose the core has to do with sovereignty.

 

[CRGreathouse]

By personhood, I'm referring to the legal powers such corporations are granted.

For the purpose of this thread, would you enumerate the legal powers that bother you?

 

[brainstorm]

By the 14th amendment, companies started in the United States become citizens with constitutional protection. I suppose the core has to do with sovereignty.

So your big concern is that ppl without citizenship can create US corporations? You wish to isolate the US economy from foreign investment?

 

[SixNein]

So your big concern is that ppl without citizenship can create US corporations? You wish to isolate the US economy from foreign investment?

I do not wish to extend citizenship rights to non-citizens through a proxy.

 

[brainstorm]

I do not wish to extend citizenship rights to non-citizens through a proxy.

So what you want is for people to invest their money in the US economy but relinquish their say in how the money is used?

 

[mugaliens]

So what you want is for people to invest their money in the US economy but relinquish their say in how the money is used?

I concur, brainstorm. That sounds amazingly like "taxation without representation," and if I'm not mistaken, it was one of the principle reasons behind our "little experiment" eleven score and thirteen years ago...

I do not wish to extend citizenship rights to non-citizens through a proxy.

On the other hand, a believe a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should involve...

...people.

Corporate entities are not people.