NationStates Jolt Archive

http://commonwonders.com/

For instance, of the first 150 cases heard by the Supreme Court involving the 14th Amendment, which requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdiction, and for which the Civil War was fought, only 15 cases concerned former slaves; the other 135 were about the rights of business entities.

Measure T reads in part (under "Findings and General Purpose"): "In a Democratic Republic all legitimate political power is held by the people, and government exercises just power only with the consent of the governed. The people create their government for their protection and benefit, and retain their right to alter their government whenever they deem the public good requires it.

"Only natural persons (human beings, in other words) possess civil and political rights."

To this, I say "hell yeah." No other organizations are treated as anything more than a group of individuals, all of whom already have their individual rights protected.

That's silly though. Corporations, by their very definition, are separated from those who work there and those who own it.
Corporations have no civil rights, other than a basic right to privacy, the rights to sign contracts and the rights to pay taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
The most salient features of incorporation include:

Limited Liability
Unlike in a partnership or sole proprietorship, members of a corporation hold no liability for the corporation's debts and obligations: see leading case in common law, Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [1897] AC 22. As a result their "limited" potential losses cannot exceed the amount which they contributed to the corporation as dues or paid for shares. The economic rationale for this lies in the fact that it allows anonymous trading in the shares of the corporation by virtue of eliminating the corporation's creditors as a stakeholder in such a transaction. Without limited liability, a creditor would not likely allow any share to be sold to a buyer of at least equivalent creditworthiness as the seller. Limited liability further allows corporations to raise funds for riskier enterprises by removing risks and costs from the owners and shifting them onto creditors and to other members of society, thereby creating an externality. Another rationale sometimes offered for limited liability is reducing the amount that an investor can lose reduces the time and effort required to determine whether a stock is risky, thus adding liquidity to the stock market - in contrast to the very illiquid market for partnership interests (however, given the due diligence already exercised by institutional and other large investors, and the availability of insurance, it is questionable whether added liability would increase the costs of determining risk sufficiently to impair the liquidity of the stock market). In any event, a lender or other creditor can require a personal guarantee on a loan to a corporation (normally a small corporation), thus introducing personal liability.

Perpetual Lifetime
The assets and structure of the corporation exist beyond the lifetime of any of its members or agents. This allows for stability and accumulation of capital, which thus becomes available for investment in projects of a larger size and over a longer term than if the corporate assets remained subject to dissolution and distribution. This feature also had great importance in the medieval period, when land donated to the Church (a corporation) would not generate the feudal fees that a lord could claim upon a landholder's death. In this regard, see Statute of Mortmain. It is important to note that the "perpetual lifetime" feature is an indication of the unbounded potential duration of the corporation's existence, and its accumulation of wealth and thus power. (In theory, a corporation can have its charter revoked at any time, putting an end to its existence as a legal entity. However, in practice, dissolution only occurs for corporations that request it or fail to meet annual filing requirements.)

Sure, you can start and make all the little mum & dad shareholders responsible for everything the firm does, and if the firm goes broke, you go and confiscate their house. Have fun.

That's silly though. Corporations, by their very definition, are separated from those who work there and those who own it.
Corporations have no civil rights, other than a basic right to privacy, the rights to sign contracts and the rights to pay taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation


Sure, you can start and make all the little mum & dad shareholders responsible for everything the firm does, and if the firm goes broke, you go and confiscate their house. Have fun.

You skipped over some stuff from the Wiki article.


Criticisms

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations criticized the corporate form because of the separation of ownership and management.

The directors of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company.

Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguist and activist describes the corporate structure as being fascist:

A corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level — there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward.... I'd love to see centralized power eliminated, whether it's the state or the economy, and have it diffused and ultimately under direct control of the participants.

Chomsky has also criticized the legal decisions that led to the creation of the modern corporation:

Corporations, which previously had been considered artificial entities with no rights, were accorded all the rights of persons, and far more, since they are "immortal persons," and "persons" of extraordinary wealth and power. Furthermore, they were no longer bound to the specific purposes designated by State charter, but could act as they chose, with few constraints.

I normally don't cite Wiki, but, for general reference, here is the article specifically about corporate personhood. It includes links to other sources and several legal cases, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

As for Humboldt County, CA -- YAY! Challenge those artificial bastards.

You skipped over some stuff from the Wiki article.
a) As for Adam Smith...well, his was an easier world. Today you simply cannot run a major business by having the owners in charge.

b) As for Chomsky - why do you even bother? The man understands about as much of economics as my dog. Not only does he consider the pursuit of personal wealth a problem rather than a worthwhile goal for those people who choose it, but his understanding of fascism is extremely limited. Afterall, he's walking around calling anything and anyone "fascist", from the US to any given firm. And he's making millions doing so. By owning stock in, you guessed it, corporations.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1132

But that aside, tell me how you start a giant business. Why would anyone invest in your new business, when they can expect to lose not only what they invest, but everything else they have as well? One thing is certain, and that is that you'll have a fun time trying to find someone willing to lend you money.

I'm sorry, pursuit of personal wealth is a worthwhile goal?

I'm sorry, pursuit of personal wealth is a worthwhile goal?
Obviously. Otherwise people wouldn't choose to do it. That some people do tells me that there is something worthwhile about it.

Obviously. Otherwise people wouldn't choose to do it. That some people do tells me that there is something worthwhile about it.
Depends on your current usage of "worthwhile."

Depends on your current usage of "worthwhile."
And that depends on the individual's preferences, ie how much "worth" they attach to material wealth and to their "while".
I don't feel that I'm in the position to tell other people how to view the world. But then, there are some who think they have the right to do so. Like Mr. Chomsky.

Obviously. Otherwise people wouldn't choose to do it. That some people do tells me that there is something worthwhile about it.

I'm not saying the pursuit of personal wealth is bad in and of itself, but saying it's good because people want to do it is very strange logic. That would justify numerous unsavory acts.

I'm not saying the pursuit of personal wealth is bad in and of itself, but saying it's good because people want to do it is very strange logic. That would justify numerous unsavory acts.
Not really, unless you again think that any one person has the right to make decisions for anyone else.
Because the unsavory acts you're thinking of probably involve one person imposing their will on another person or property by force, or perhaps breaking previous agreements.

Not really, unless you again think that any one person has the right to make decisions for anyone else.
Because the unsavory acts you're thinking of probably involve one person imposing their will on another person or property by force, or perhaps breaking previous agreements.
What about shooting heroin? Many people choose to do that. It imposes on no one. Do you consider it a worthwhile pursuit? Is being a junkie a pursuit on the same order as being a corporate person?

If you say yes, I'll probably agree with you.

I would say the pursuit of personal wealth is evil. Selfishness being the root of all evil. Now if you acquire personal wealth while trying for something else that is ok. But if the main goal is personal wealth you have entered selfishness and therefore ... evil

What about shooting heroin? Many people choose to do that. It imposes on no one. Do you consider it a worthwhile pursuit?
It doesn't matter whether I consider it a worthwhile pursuit. They consider it a worthwhile pursuit. And that makes it worthwhile to them, and I won't judge them.
In other words: What they do to their own body is their own business.

Is being a junkie a pursuit on the same order as being a corporate person?
Hmm? I don't think being a corporate person is a pursuit at all. We were talking about gathering personal, material wealth.

Selfishness being the root of all evil.
Hehe, that line again.

Anyways, move away from the one-liners and give me an argument. Why is selfishness evil? What is evil? How do we tell what is and what isn't? Does it justify taking away my right to pursue material wealth?

And is a caveman first picking up a stone to kill an animal evil?

Hehe, that line again.

Anyways, move away from the one-liners and give me an argument. Why is selfishness evil? What is evil? How do we tell what is and what isn't? Does it justify taking away my right to pursue material wealth?

And is a caveman first picking up a stone to kill an animal evil?

Anytime you put the wants of the one over the needs of the many you commit a selfish aka evil act. Think about any evil act committed in history. It isn't to hard to find the selfish reason behind it. Now look at the mythological good acts..they are identified by the lack of selfishness the thinking of others benefits before your own. Even some of our historic good acts have come close to real unselfishness...not many but a few. If a person has to find an identifier for evil, the act of being selfish is a lot more logical than "God says so" If you don't wish to agree...then don't your opinion in no way changes mind and I don't really care which way you choose to live your life. It is your life, you have to make the decisions that will way on your conscience.

Anyways, move away from the one-liners and give me an argument. Why is selfishness evil? What is evil? How do we tell what is and what isn't? Does it justify taking away my right to pursue material wealth?

Why is anything evil?

It doesn't matter whether I consider it a worthwhile pursuit. They consider it a worthwhile pursuit. And that makes it worthwhile to them, and I won't judge them.
In other words: What they do to their own body is their own business.


Hmm? I don't think being a corporate person is a pursuit at all. We were talking about gathering personal, material wealth.
Maybe that's what you'd like to talk about. The thread topic is about corporate personhood and a challenge thereto.

Are you attempting equate the legal fiction of corporate personhood to your right to make money? Perhaps you think that a right to make money means there should be no such thing as laws or regulations on business at all? Or are you just trying to hijack the thread before it even gets started?

Anytime you put the wants of the one over the needs of the many you commit a selfish aka evil act.
In other words, something that comes natural to people is evil.
Let's face it...two people in Central Congo, or you? Make your choice.

The answer is that people sometimes sacrifice themselves. But not because they believe in utilitarianism, but because it makes them feel good about themselves, because they weigh up the alternatives and decide that for themselves it is a better way of acting. It's still selfish.

But then, you probably know that, deep down somewhere. Because the notion that anything that you do for yourself is selfish aka evil has been used by religions and worldy leaders throughout history to make people feel bad about themselves, and then get concessions from them.

Think about any evil act committed in history. It isn't to hard to find the selfish reason behind it.
You mean like the crimes committed by Soviet Russia? Where some had to go so that everyone could enjoy the benefits of a utopian society?
Or Nazi Germany perhaps? Where the individual had to die for his race, because being part of a greater race was more important than your individual wants and needs?

You can find selfish reasons behind some of them, if that is your preconceived conclusion. Fact of the matter is that all these people thought they would make the world a better place for others to live in.

Now look at the mythological good acts..they are identified by the lack of selfishness the thinking of others benefits before your own.
Hehe, maybe that's because they're mythological?

It is your life, you have to make the decisions that will way on your conscience.
Thank you. That is the moral code that I live by, and that I have been pushing in this thread. You have no right to judge my selfishness.

Why is anything evil?
That's an excellent question. I reserve the right to say that I'm in no position to tell and that everyone has to answer that question for themselves. In other words, I can not make moral judgements on behalf of other people.

Are you attempting equate the legal fiction of corporate personhood to your right to make money?
No, it started as an ad hominem argument against Mr. Chomsky. ;)

Perhaps you think that a right to make money means there should be no such thing as laws or regulations on business at all?
Such a case could be made, but I'm not the one to do it.

Or are you just trying to hijack the thread before it even gets started?
No, of course not. Let's return to the topic.
My original point was: You cannot start and run big businesses with personal liability. Unless you are willing to go without big businesses (and the advantages of them, like economies of scale) you need corporate personhood in one form or another.

=No, of course not. Let's return to the topic.
My original point was: You cannot start and run big businesses with personal liability. Unless you are willing to go without big businesses (and the advantages of them, like economies of scale) you need corporate personhood in one form or another.

But that's only one tiny aspect of the "Corporate Person."

<snip>
No, it started as an ad hominem argument against Mr. Chomsky. ;)
Whatever. Since Lefty isn't on the forum, and since ad hominem is not a valid debating tactic, let's leave him out of it, shall we?

Such a case could be made, but I'm not the one to do it.
Good.

No, of course not. Let's return to the topic.
My original point was: You cannot start and run big businesses with personal liability. Unless you are willing to go without big businesses (and the advantages of them, like economies of scale) you need corporate personhood in one form or another.
You can protect against personal liability in other ways and, more important, using other terminology. Although the original idea was about liability, the concept of "legal personhood" as applied to an artificial construct is inherently absurd, thus meaningless, and thus open to misuse. I suggest it has been misused to allow corporations to claim privileges to corporations as if they were people. For instance, we've gone from protecting real people (the directors) from personal liability to protecting fictional persons (the corporations themselves) against slander -- cited against whistleblowers -- and hardship -- as an excuse why neither the corporations nor their directors should have to pay proportionate taxes even though other persons do. It has also been misused to create a false persona that is the corporate entity, which allows directors to hide not just from liability for legitimate risks, but even from accountability for actual wrongdoing, by hiding their personal actions in a labyrinth of corporate IDs.

I do not propose to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I see no reason why a system that allows such rampant corruption to be carried on should not be amended.

In any event, the creation of the concept of corporate personhood had one immediate effect that, imo, may be the root of the problem. Originally, corporations were created (incorporated) to do a specific project. For instance, a corporation was created specifically to manage the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge. Once the project was completed, the corporation would be dissolved and all the shareholders would take their shares and the directors get their commissions, and all go their ways -- to the next project and the next corporation.

Have you ever started a corporation? This legacy is still seen in the Certificte of Organization and Articles of Organization you have to fill out. There is a space for a detailed description of the purpose of the corporation, and another for the date the corporation will be dissolved. Nowadays, the descriptions tend to be extremely vague and the dissolution date is left blank or filled in with "None."

An inadvertent effect of the granting of rights to a corporation as a person was that it started to be seen as not temporary. Instead of being a way for independent businessmen to pool their resources for a short-term venture, it instead became a new way of making money by management but using a temporary project model, rather than a long-term/permanent business model. Corporations today are like .... termite colonies just randomly spreading from house to house, infesting, taking everything they can out of it, and moving on to the next, without any concern for whose house it is, what its made of, what's in it, etc, etc, or even if it is toxic to them. I mean, how else do you get oil companies selling insurance and pharmaceuticals and running media outlets all at the same time? Corporations have no sense of either direction or proportion. They are not capable of directing or regulating their own growth, let alone the conduct of their shareholders.

This downward trend was guaranteed, of course, with the passage of laws making it illegal for a corporation to do anything that would threaten profits under any circumstances.

I'll tell you right up front that I cannot accept any argument that would claim that the current system of transnational corporations is not hopelessly fubared. Do we need big business? Debatable, but possibly. But why does it have to be in the form of corporations under a mandate, essentially, to act like criminals and given, essentially, a free pass to do so by rights of personhood?

That's an excellent question.

I agree. That's why I asked it. :)

I reserve the right to say that I'm in no position to tell and that everyone has to answer that question for themselves. In other words, I can not make moral judgements on behalf of other people.

But is that not a moral judgement as well - the idea that because none of us knows the truth about objective morality, if it even exists, we cannot impose our personal moral preferences on anyone else? Indeed, aren't you imposing that moral judgement on everyone?

To this, I say "hell yeah." No other organizations are treated as anything more than a group of individuals, all of whom already have their individual rights protected.

Better make sure to put an amendment so it says "natural persons outside the womb," otherwise the fundies might feel it protects the so-called pre-born.

For instance, we've gone from protecting real people (the directors) from personal liability to protecting fictional persons (the corporations themselves) against slander -- cited against whistleblowers -- and hardship -- as an excuse why neither the corporations nor their directors should have to pay proportionate taxes even though other persons do.
Why not their directors? CEOs pay taxes.
Corporations are eligible to corporate tax rates precisely because they are not like people. They are not individuals, they are, as you said, a particular artificial construct. Otherwise they could vote or run for political offices, which would be interesting.

It has also been misused to create a false persona that is the corporate entity, which allows directors to hide not just from liability for legitimate risks, but even from accountability for actual wrongdoing, by hiding their personal actions in a labyrinth of corporate IDs.
So your problem is not with the legal construct, but the bureaucracy of a large business?

An inadvertent effect of the granting of rights to a corporation as a person was that it started to be seen as not temporary. Instead of being a way for independent businessmen to pool their resources for a short-term venture, it instead became a new way of making money by management but using a temporary project model, rather than a long-term/permanent business model.
Which of course isn't really a problem. It means the application changed, but you didn't make a case for how this is bad.
People like making money, and if they think this is the best way of using their resources to do so, they should be able to.

Corporations today are like .... termite colonies just randomly spreading from house to house, infesting, taking everything they can out of it, and moving on to the next, without any concern for whose house it is, what its made of, what's in it, etc, etc, or even if it is toxic to them.
That's pretty empty rhetoric, don't you think? It's almost like a German politician a while ago. He called hedge funds and international investors "locusts".

I mean, how else do you get oil companies selling insurance and pharmaceuticals and running media outlets all at the same time? Corporations have no sense of either direction or proportion.
Corporations have one sense, and one sense only: To maximise shareholder value.
That is all they want to achieve, that is all they do. They don't need another sense of direction, nor a sense of proportion, because that is all integrated in the goal to maximise shareholder value.

They are not capable of directing or regulating their own growth, let alone the conduct of their shareholders.
Of course they can regulate their growth. They can decide what to acquire and what to sell and so on. They do that all the time.
And obviously they can't regulate their shareholders. Would you want Microsoft to tell all the little investors how to live their lives?
On the other hand, shareholders have a board of directors, which regulates what the CEO does, so they have some control.

This downward trend was guaranteed, of course, with the passage of laws making it illegal for a corporation to do anything that would threaten profits under any circumstances.
Corporations can do whatever they want. Even if there was such a law, they can still claim that it will increase profits in the long term. I wouldn't know why they would want to do something to hurt their profits anyways.
And considering that law, I find that a surprising number of corporations manage to make pretty spectacular losses.

I'll tell you right up front that I cannot accept any argument that would claim that the current system of transnational corporations is not hopelessly fubared.
Interesting that you would use the term "transnational", which is actually pretty strictly defined. So what exactly is wrong with a transnational?

But why does it have to be in the form of corporations under a mandate, essentially, to act like criminals and given, essentially, a free pass to do so by rights of personhood?
None of this is true. Corporations can be sued and persecuted, as can CEOs and employees. They do not have a free pass to anything.
Your problem is with capitalism, not the legal concept of the corporation.

But is that not a moral judgement as well - the idea that because none of us knows the truth about objective morality, if it even exists, we cannot impose our personal moral preferences on anyone else? Indeed, aren't you imposing that moral judgement on everyone?
Not really. It's a value-neutral stance, I believe.

Not really. It's a value-neutral stance, I believe.

No, it's not. It says that committing a certain act - namely, imposing your morality on somebody else - is wrong. That's a moral judgement.

No, it's not. It says that committing a certain act - namely, imposing your morality on somebody else - is wrong. That's a moral judgement.
Ugh, logic. One can probably illustrate my point with a bit of algebra, but not now.
I might come back to it, if this thread is still going tomorrow. It's like "is the absence of something something?"

Ugh, logic. One can probably illustrate my point with a bit of algebra, but not now.
I might come back to it, if this thread is still going tomorrow. It's like "is the absence of something something?"

Well, not really. I still think you're assuming a hidden moral judgement.

Look. I am an altruist, as you probably know by now. I hold it to be the duty of every sentient being to act, to the best of their abilities, to advance the welfare of all sentient beings.

Now, being the moral relativist I am, I would be the first to agree with you that "I'm in no position to tell" what is evil and what is not in a general, objective sense. I can't say, objectively, that you are wrong to seek wealth for yourself; I can, however, say it from my subjective moral framework, because, personally, I am of the opinion that it violates that duty to all other sentient beings. (I am no paragon of virtue either; I'm not trying to be moralistic here, just to illustrate a point.) The distinction between these two perspectives - my personal belief and objective fact - only has moral relevance if it has moral relevance in the moral system we, personally, adopt. I can say that my moral system entitles me to impose that duty upon you by force if I so choose (though I don't, but that's another discussion.) There is no "objective" immorality in such imposition because there is no (knowable, at least) objective morality.

Am I clarifying anything, or just repeating myself? If I'm not clarifying, I'll be quiet until you respond in more detail.

Actually, you've not made it all that clear.

I can say that my moral system entitles me to impose that duty upon you by force if I so choose

If one said that, I'd say he wasn't discussing a moral system, he was merely seeking to excuse his actions.

Indeed, aren't you imposing that moral judgement on everyone?

It isn't an imposition. Saying it is an imposition is like saying a burglar alarm is an imposition upon home invaders.

If one said that, I'd say he wasn't discussing a moral system, he was merely seeking to excuse his actions.

You don't know that.

It isn't an imposition. Saying it is an imposition is like saying a burglar alarm is an imposition upon home invaders.

Well, no, because a burglar alarm doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. It's like saying that forcing the home invaders out of your home is an imposition upon the home invaders - and it is. It may be a justified imposition, but as soon as we begin to talk about "justification" we are making a moral judgement, and if we act on that moral judgement to stop someone else from doing something, we are imposing it on that person.

http://commonwonders.com/





To this, I say "hell yeah." No other organizations are treated as anything more than a group of individuals, all of whom already have their individual rights protected.

I agree.

Think about any evil act committed in history. It isn't to hard to find the selfish reason behind it.

The Holocaust. There was no material gain to be made by Hitler or the Nazi party from committing genocide, instead, it was done out of a perverted sense of public good, it was believed that Germany as a whole could only prosper if all of the Jews within its borders were dead.

The Holocaust. There was no material gain to be made by Hitler or the Nazi party from committing genocide, instead, it was done out of a perverted sense of public good, it was believed that Germany as a whole could only prosper if all of the Jews within its borders were dead.

:rolleyes: The selfish motive was to find a scapegoat for Germany's problems, eliminate them, and thereby cement power. They also siezed the Jews property, wealth and even their gold teeth while extracting slave labor from them.

I could see some drawbacks to the elimination of corporate personhood. The sheer complexity of rewriting the corporate law and taxation codes would create a bureaucratic mess way beyond anything currently in existence. It's a good idea in principle but I'm afraid that it will just lead to a more complicated system even easier to abuse than the current one.

The other problem is that corporations possess similar qualities in other nations; it might cause some problems for transnational and foreign corporations and could make them less likely to set up operations in the United States. The only way corporate personhood can be abolished is if the laws are changed not just in the US but worldwide; it would be a desirable end but would require a lot of work and money.

For instance, of the first 150 cases heard by the Supreme Court involving the 14th Amendment, which requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdiction, and for which the Civil War was fought, only 15 cases concerned former slaves; the other 135 were about the rights of business entities.
If corporations are people, isn't shareholding a illegal as a form of slavery?

If corporations are people, isn't shareholding a illegal as a form of slavery?

Charlton Heston: Corporations are people! Peeeeeooooplllllle!

Anytime you put the wants of the one over the needs of the many you commit a selfish aka evil act. Think about any evil act committed in history. It isn't to hard to find the selfish reason behind it. Now look at the mythological good acts..they are identified by the lack of selfishness the thinking of others benefits before your own. Even some of our historic good acts have come close to real unselfishness...not many but a few. If a person has to find an identifier for evil, the act of being selfish is a lot more logical than "God says so" If you don't wish to agree...then don't your opinion in no way changes mind and I don't really care which way you choose to live your life. It is your life, you have to make the decisions that will way on your conscience.


Let me outline a couple of stories, and use your criteria to descide who is evil.

Jack is a hardworking man, who devotes all of his time to making money. Jack starts a shipping business, and moves it into several poor towns with no cheap shipping. Because of his business, other businesses are allowed to start in these towns, and they eventually pull out of poverty. Thousands of people's lives have been made better because one man took a financial risk, for which he was amply rewarded. According to you, Jack is evil.

Tommy is a member of the KKK, and sees an ideal world where black people know their place, and everyone is happy. (or at least everyone that matters)
he works night and day in his basement to make enough homemade explosives, and then walks into a school in harlem. According to you, Tommy is a good person.

I was thinking about this earlier today, and while I can't claim to understand all the nuances of corporate personhood, this occurred to me. One of the basic legal defenses in cases of corporate wrongdoing is that because of the divide between the person of the corporation and the people who work for the corporation, it's often difficult to convict anyone of wrongdoing. The recent examples of Worldcom and Enron are aberrations compared to the long and sordid history of corporate wrongdoing.

So if corporations are legally people, why can't the corporations be accused of wrongdoing, and if it's a serious enough charge, like murder for instance, why can't they, if they're convicted, be given the death penalty, e.g. have their charters revoked and their assets liquidated?

I was thinking about this earlier today, and while I can't claim to understand all the nuances of corporate personhood, this occurred to me. One of the basic legal defenses in cases of corporate wrongdoing is that because of the divide between the person of the corporation and the people who work for the corporation, it's often difficult to convict anyone of wrongdoing. The recent examples of Worldcom and Enron are aberrations compared to the long and sordid history of corporate wrongdoing.

So if corporations are legally people, why can't the corporations be accused of wrongdoing, and if it's a serious enough charge, like murder for instance, why can't they, if they're convicted, be given the death penalty, e.g. have their charters revoked and their assets liquidated?
Because politics in America is owned, by and large, by major corporations. Why else would we have created a specific niche for health insurance companies to profit, when it was unnecessary.

Obviously. Otherwise people wouldn't choose to do it. That some people do tells me that there is something worthwhile about it.Yes, but there is something special about the pursuit of wealth.

If some people want to go fishing, that does not mean we all have to go fishing.

Yet as Hobbes pointed out some four hundred years ago, when a small minority craves power or wealth, everyone else is forced to do their best to keep up--because whoever comes in last is effectively a slave. (Yes, though we may have abolished de jure slavery, capitalism nevertheless retains a genuine underclass with no choice but to do the most menial and repugnant jobs--and usually for the most pitiful pay.)

Thus, the question is not so much whether the accumulation of wealth is "a" good... but whether it is so good, or its general benefits so worthwhile, that we should allow it to literally define our society.

Because politics in America is owned, by and large, by major corporations. Why else would we have created a specific niche for health insurance companies to profit, when it was unnecessary.
Agreed--my question was more theoretical than practical.

http://commonwonders.com/
To this, I say "hell yeah." No other organizations are treated as anything more than a group of individuals, all of whom already have their individual rights protected.
Why are we objecting to this? I would think that allowing a corporation to be sued, instead of it's shareholders is probably good. Enabling the shareholders to sue the corporation is good, too, or so I would think. Allowing a corporation to exist after deaths of shareholders or officers should also be a good thing. And why isn't allowing easily transferable ownership in the form of stock sales a good thing? All of this is taken for granted, yet it only exists because a corporation is given some identity as a 'person'.

Why not their directors? CEOs pay taxes.
HAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one!!

Corporations are eligible to corporate tax rates precisely because they are not like people. They are not individuals, they are, as you said, a particular artificial construct. Otherwise they could vote or run for political offices, which would be interesting.
Interesting enough to write a book called "Jennifer Government"?

So your problem is not with the legal construct, but the bureaucracy of a large business?
*patience...we're only just beginning...*

No, as I said and explained, my problem is with the legal construct.

Which of course isn't really a problem. It means the application changed, but you didn't make a case for how this is bad.
People like making money, and if they think this is the best way of using their resources to do so, they should be able to.
*patience...*

Yeah, I did explain why it's bad.

That's pretty empty rhetoric, don't you think? It's almost like a German politician a while ago. He called hedge funds and international investors "locusts".
No, actually, I don't think it's empty rhetoric. It is a descriptive analogy used to explain my thought.

Corporations have one sense, and one sense only: To maximise shareholder value.
That is all they want to achieve, that is all they do. They don't need another sense of direction, nor a sense of proportion, because that is all integrated in the goal to maximise shareholder value.
So, now we're just going to repeat my points back at me but in different words? I just finished telling you that, and telling you that it is a bad thing. Do you care to explain why I'm wrong, if you can?

Of course they can regulate their growth. They can decide what to acquire and what to sell and so on. They do that all the time.
And obviously they can't regulate their shareholders. Would you want Microsoft to tell all the little investors how to live their lives?
On the other hand, shareholders have a board of directors, which regulates what the CEO does, so they have some control.
So, to you, doing a thing badly is just as good as doing it well, just as long as it gets done. So you don't give a shit if badly managed diversification leads to the destruction of whole divisions of the corporation, even the corporation itself, throwing 1000s of people out of work, and only producing nominal profit margins for two years -- just so long as some CEO decides it was a good idea? Well, you would be increasingly in the minority among actual shareholders. Can we say Disney, kids?

And who said anything about controlling shareholders? Are you suggesting that corporate directors should be able to do anything they want, a la Ken Lay? You do know that "directors" is another word for officers and executives of a corporation, don't you? It's an umbrella term that covers all of them, but it has nothing to do with shareholders.

Corporations can do whatever they want. Even if there was such a law, they can still claim that it will increase profits in the long term.
And that's called a bad thing. Remember Enron?

I wouldn't know why they would want to do something to hurt their profits anyways.
Anything that does not immediately maximize profits by the projected margin within each quarter is considered "hurting profits." So, if a corporate CEO decides to slow down growth in order to catch up with safety regulation in order to protect the corporation from liability and lawsuits, he would be blamed for that. If a CEO passed on a merger deal that would have generated immediate profits but was shady and would have subjected the corporation to SEC investigation with a high probability of penalties afterward, he would be blamed for that, too.

And considering that law, I find that a surprising number of corporations manage to make pretty spectacular losses.
Gosh, you don't think it's a hint that they don't know how to manage the direction and rate of growth, can't control the actions of their directors, and are pressured to produced the projected profit margin for this quarter even if it will damage the corporation in the next quarter? You know, like I was saying?

Interesting that you would use the term "transnational", which is actually pretty strictly defined. So what exactly is wrong with a transnational?
Everything that is wrong with domestic only without the limitation of being subject to any one nation's clear jurisdiction for regulatory or punitive purposes. So the beauty of a transnational is that, even if the CEO's default on every single obligation to the shareholders, they may still manage to avoid punishment. Transnational = zero accountability.

None of this is true. Corporations can be sued and persecuted, as can CEOs and employees. They do not have a free pass to anything.
Your problem is with capitalism, not the legal concept of the corporation.
The word is "prosecute," not "persecute." And for every Ken Lay there are a hundred executives who get off with a wink and a nod. Go look at history, if you don't believe me.

And your accusation that I don't like capitalism is nothing but a knee-jerk denunciation of anyone who doesn't buy into this free-market fantasy that transnationals like the oil and telcom companies love to spin. I said nothing to indicate that I am opposed to capitalism. I happen to be a dedicated capitalist -- Adam Smith style. He's my second favorite philosophical thinker, after Macchiavelli. Don't make trite assumptions, NL.

Why are we objecting to this? I would think that allowing a corporation to be sued, instead of it's shareholders is probably good. Enabling the shareholders to sue the corporation is good, too, or so I would think. Allowing a corporation to exist after deaths of shareholders or officers should also be a good thing. And why isn't allowing easily transferable ownership in the form of stock sales a good thing? All of this is taken for granted, yet it only exists because a corporation is given some identity as a 'person'.

The problem is that when a Corporation is successfully sued, the people most likely to suffer the consequences are the employees, not the shareholders and not the board of directors. If a Corporation needs to pay fines, that's taken out of the Corporation's profits, rather than directly punishing an individual. The fat cats maybe make a little less of a fortune while layoffs ensue. Therefore there is less of a feeling of personal responsibility. Plus, you can't imprison a Corproation.

The movers and shakers in a corporation (Lay and Skilling being exceptions,) rarely feel the consequences of their actions. Even when a CEO is fired, even for gross incompetence or misconduct, their severance is enough for several people to live on for life.

The problem is that when a Corporation is successfully sued, the people most likely to suffer the consequences are the employees, not the shareholders and not the board of directors. If a Corporation needs to pay fines, that's taken out of the Corporation's profits, rather than directly punishing an individual. The fat cats maybe make a little less of a fortune while layoffs ensue. Therefore there is less of a feeling of personal responsibility. Plus, you can't imprison a Corproation.

The movers and shakers in a corporation (Lay and Skilling being exceptions,) rarely feel the consequences of their actions. Even when a CEO is fired, even for gross incompetence or misconduct, their severance is enough for several people to live on for life.
Let's say the stockholders do suffer, and I have as a Coca-Cola shareholder, when the company is sued. Does that mean that we should remove the protections that keep shareholders from being sued directly? I don't think that the pound of flesh you want is worth the (un)intended consequences. Riding the ups and downs of a company is one of the risks that one takes when one buys stock. Being personally sued for over a product liability issue isn't one of those things.

And why do we need to imprision a corporation? They're inanimate and not capable of independant action. Looks to me that Lay, Skilling, and the guys responsible for the S&L misdeeds of the '80s got pretty much what was coming to them.

Yet as Hobbes pointed out some four hundred years ago, when a small minority craves power or wealth, everyone else is forced to do their best to keep up--because whoever comes in last is effectively a slave.
Not really. You see, the problem is that people want living standards to be higher. Just because some people become rich doesn't force anyone else to become rich, they can continue to live in squalor as they have before. But they don't. Capitalism doesn't force people to work for a living, life does.

HAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one!!
Oh, so there is a special CEO tax rate that is different from any other tax rate now?

So, now we're just going to repeat my points back at me but in different words? I just finished telling you that, and telling you that it is a bad thing. Do you care to explain why I'm wrong, if you can?
I don't think you explained why it is bad at all. What you did is say that it is bad without justification.
Seeing as a corporation is something people start to use their resources more effectively to become rich, there is nothing wrong if a corporation sees maximising shareholder value as a goal.

So you don't give a shit if badly managed diversification leads to the destruction of whole divisions of the corporation, even the corporation itself, throwing 1000s of people out of work, and only producing nominal profit margins for two years -- just so long as some CEO decides it was a good idea? Well, you would be increasingly in the minority among actual shareholders. Can we say Disney, kids?
You just answered your own question there, didn't you. No, I don't give a shit, as long as I'm not a stakeholder. But the stakeholders certainly do, and the company is reporting to the shareholders, who make up a large chunk of the stakeholders.

And who said anything about controlling shareholders?
You did:
[Corporations] are not capable of directing or regulating their own growth, let alone the conduct of their shareholders.

Are you suggesting that corporate directors should be able to do anything they want, a la Ken Lay?
Hehe, that guy will be your kind's justification for all sorts of things for decades to come. He's in jail, remember?
For every CEO who goes into the news, be it for scandals or for big pay-outs there are hundreds who do their job properly, or who don't and get let go with no big bonus at all.

You do know that "directors" is another word for officers and executives of a corporation, don't you? It's an umbrella term that covers all of them, but it has nothing to do with shareholders.
No, a Board of Directors is a specifically appointed panel of people who are not involved in running the business, but who are supervising those who do. They are elected by the shareholders, and therefore represent the owners. They hire and fire CEOs. They are quite distinct from them.

And that's called a bad thing. Remember Enron?
Or a good thing. Your point below was that corporations always have to care about short-term profits only, which is a blatant lie.

What you need is an intro course in financial management. A firm aims to maximise shareholder value, yes? Well, that means it is trying to maximise the present value of all future cash flows of the company. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are short-term in outlook. It can, but often it doesn't.

I think this is where you are going horribly wrong in your argument. Corporations don't do short-term things. They calculate things such that they compare present values of cash flows, whether they are today or in twenty years. Short-term profits obviously get a greater weight, because that money can be reinvested, but very often short-term profits are sacrificed for future cash flows. It's called an investment, and corporations do it all the time.

The reason some firms get punished for doing that sort of thing on the stock market (which is more a problem of ownership than the legal construct, so you're still ranting about the wrong thing) is that investors don't believe that the investment is a good one.

Anything that does not immediately maximize profits by the projected margin within each quarter is considered "hurting profits."
You should have a read through a few corporate reports from time to time.

Everything that is wrong with domestic only without the limitation of being subject to any one nation's clear jurisdiction for regulatory or punitive purposes.
:D
In other words, you have no idea what a transnational is.

Anyways, this is also a blatant lie. Multinational (that's the word you are looking for) Corporations are just as accountable, if not moreso, than domestic ones. Not only do they have to comply with the usual laws and practices of their home country, but they need to comply with the laws and practices of all their host countries, as well as regulations on international trade.

The word is "prosecute," not "persecute."
Why thank you. Now, if you can make an argument of similar length and scope in German, I might point out a little mistake as well.

You can find selfish reasons behind some of them, if that is your preconceived conclusion. Fact of the matter is that all these people thought they would make the world a better place for others to live in.

Roads to hell, all.

Let's say the stockholders do suffer, and I have as a Coca-Cola shareholder, when the company is sued. Does that mean that we should remove the protections that keep shareholders from being sued directly?

As people who approve of domestic spying and the detention of possible insurgents are fond of saying, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.

I don't think that the pound of flesh you want is worth the (un)intended consequences. Riding the ups and downs of a company is one of the risks that one takes when one buys stock. Being personally sued for over a product liability issue isn't one of those things.

Liability for non-decision making stockholders wasn't even my point here. Read the original article again, you've strayed far from the point. Anyway, perhaps extra vigilance in keeping an eye on a corporation one is invested in wouldn't be all that bad a thing, you think?

And why do we need to imprision a corporation? They're inanimate and not capable of independant action. Looks to me that Lay, Skilling, and the guys responsible for the S&L misdeeds of the '80s got pretty much what was coming to them.

Oh please. Corporations get sued or fined all the time for things that would be prisonable offenses for non-fictitious entities. Lay, Skilling and the S&L goons are the exceptions. For example, did anyone go to jail when people DIED eating contaminated Jack n' the Box burgers? No, the corporation merely paid fines and lost business. Yeah. That punishment fits the crime.

Current corporate practices lead to laxity and feelings of invulnerability that culminate in what thugs like Lay and Skilling did. It's human nature for people to get away with what they think theyt can, and it's time for such nonsense to stop. Making someone slightly less rich is not a punishment.

Oh, so there is a special CEO tax rate that is different from any other tax rate now?
Who said anything about special tax rates? I said proportionate taxes just like everybody else. How is that special? As things stand, they do pay a special tax rate -- a lower one.

I don't think you explained why it is bad at all. What you did is say that it is bad without justification.
Seeing as a corporation is something people start to use their resources more effectively to become rich, there is nothing wrong if a corporation sees maximising shareholder value as a goal.
You just ignored what I said. I'll repeat it in summary and see if you choose to ignore it again:

1) Corporate personhood + the requirement to chase profits no matter what = a system that encourages corruption.

2) Corporations were originally designed for temporary projects. They work according to short term dynamics. Long term businesses that have no dissolution date -- like manufacturing -- need long term dynamics to make them profitable over the long term. So the corporation is a bad model for long term business, but that is how it is being used.

3) Add (1) and (2) and you get a business model that produces corruption and illegality, exploitation rather than management of business resources, and social instability.

You just answered your own question there, didn't you. No, I don't give a shit, as long as I'm not a stakeholder. But the stakeholders certainly do, and the company is reporting to the shareholders, who make up a large chunk of the stakeholders.
Cute. You make a point about what you'd care about as shareholder and then claim the issue doesn't apply to you because you're not a shareholder. You claimed that shareholders would not blame executives for making decisions. Disney is an example of shareholders doing exactly that.

You did:
My mistake. I meant to say "the conduct of their directors."

Hehe, that guy will be your kind's justification for all sorts of things for decades to come. He's in jail, remember?
For every CEO who goes into the news, be it for scandals or for big pay-outs there are hundreds who do their job properly, or who don't and get let go with no big bonus at all.
No bonus? I'd love to meet them. I'd be honored to shake their hands. Too bad you can't name one as an example.

No, a Board of Directors is a specifically appointed panel of people who are not involved in running the business, but who are supervising those who do. They are elected by the shareholders, and therefore represent the owners. They hire and fire CEOs. They are quite distinct from them.
You have never created a corporation, have you?

The officers of a corporation -- President, Treasurer, Clerk -- are directors. They are also members of the Board of Directors. Depending on the size and organization of the corporation, they may or may not be voting members. They may also be the highest ranking executives, i.e. CEO, CFO, COO. In some corporations, the same individuals will be officers, board members, and executives, all at the same time.

The President, Treasurer and Clerk of a corporation do carry responsiblities and liabilities (not personal liabilities) for the corporation, as they are the signatories of documents governing the corporation.

Or a good thing. Your point below was that corporations always have to care about short-term profits only, which is a blatant lie.
A lie? Wow, you're quick to fling accusations and assumptions around, aren't you? How is my statement a lie? If I'm mistaken, show me how. If you have proof that I am lying, show it. Otherwise, go to hell with your accusations.

What you need is an intro course in financial management. A firm aims to maximise shareholder value, yes? Well, that means it is trying to maximise the present value of all future cash flows of the company. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are short-term in outlook. It can, but often it doesn't.

I think this is where you are going horribly wrong in your argument. Corporations don't do short-term things. They calculate things such that they compare present values of cash flows, whether they are today or in twenty years. Short-term profits obviously get a greater weight, because that money can be reinvested, but very often short-term profits are sacrificed for future cash flows. It's called an investment, and corporations do it all the time.

The reason some firms get punished for doing that sort of thing on the stock market (which is more a problem of ownership than the legal construct, so you're still ranting about the wrong thing) is that investors don't believe that the investment is a good one.
None of this is relevant. Your recitation of how things are supposed to work does not address my statements that it isn't working.

You should have a read through a few corporate reports from time to time.
I have. I've read lots of corporate documents, and I've written a few, too. I was a proofreader and legal assistant for nearly 15 years. I worked 5 years at Dewey Ballantine, one of the biggest and oldest corporate law firms in NYC, and I worked for attorneys at firms and in private practice in many areas including corporate, contract, and commercial real estate (related). I've handled organizational and operative documents for corporations ranging from sole proprietorships up to AT&T and GE. Also, as a proofreader/editor I have worked on staff for corporations, dealt directly with the executives, and vetted in-house documents. In addition, my mother has been a corporate and legal executive assistant for over 35 years. She has worked for CEOs, CFOs, and COOs, as well as general counsels for major corporations in NYC and Massachusetts.

So, by both nurture and personal experience, I am rather reporting from the field. I know how corporations function. I also know how they malfunction, since I spent 15 years producing documents work for the lawyers whose job it was to pull their asses out of the fire when they fucked up.

:D
In other words, you have no idea what a transnational is.

Anyways, this is also a blatant lie. Multinational (that's the word you are looking for) Corporations are just as accountable, if not moreso, than domestic ones. Not only do they have to comply with the usual laws and practices of their home country, but they need to comply with the laws and practices of all their host countries, as well as regulations on international trade.
Fine. Keep ignoring reality if you like. Ignore the real effect of when a corporation bases itself in the Caymen Islands and then claims that as a reason why it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of whatever country it gets itself into trouble in.

And keep on calling other people liars to cover the fact that you are just spinning a bunch of free-market bullshit. I've given you my background for how I know what I'm saying. If you know better, tell us how you know it. Who knows? You might shut me up. Anything is possible.

Why thank you. Now, if you can make an argument of similar length and scope in German, I might point out a little mistake as well.
Oh, pardon me, I didn't realize you'd rather carry on being wrong than accept a correction. I also didn't realize that they don't speak English in Australia. You seem to be faking it well enough to pass though, so long as you don't try to claim that you're not fluent.

As things stand, they do pay a special tax rate -- a lower one.
They are usually in the top tax bracket. If they try and avoid paying that, that's their right. They're not in the business of running after the State to hand over the product of their work, and neither am I.

1) Corporate personhood + the requirement to chase profits no matter what = a system that encourages corruption.
Corruption doesn't increase profits though. It results in individuals stealing money from the corporation, and that is hardly encouraged.

Long term businesses that have no dissolution date -- like manufacturing -- need long term dynamics to make them profitable over the long term. So the corporation is a bad model for long term business, but that is how it is being used.
And why is it being used that way? Because people think they are better off if they use it. Surprisingly enough, they will have their reasons, and if it didn't work, they would stop doing it.
As it is, pretty much all big businesses, many of which have been around for many decades are corporations, including manufacturing. Some do badly, some do exceptionally well.

3) Add (1) and (2) and you get a business model that produces corruption and illegality, exploitation rather than management of business resources, and social instability.
"Social Instability"? Oh, yes, I forget: it's the higher purpose of businesspeople to make society better.

You claimed that shareholders would not blame executives for making decisions.
I did not. Read what I'm writing, don't presume.
I'm saying that it is no my business to blame anyone, unless I have a stake in the operation. Corporations are actually more accountable, because there are more people who do have a stake in them than if it was just one or two people owning the whole thing.

No bonus? I'd love to meet them. I'd be honored to shake their hands. Too bad you can't name one as an example.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf20050729_7218_db039.htm

You have never created a corporation, have you?
No. But legal documents seem to not convey quite how the system works.

The officers of a corporation -- President, Treasurer, Clerk -- are directors.
No they are not.
Officers (http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=540) are managers, Directors (http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=502) are supervisors.

The President, Treasurer and Clerk of a corporation do carry responsiblities and liabilities (not personal liabilities) for the corporation, as they are the signatories of documents governing the corporation.
Not necessarily. The real power comes from those who own, not run the corporation. Due to the size, those who own the thing are represented by the directors, who supervise the management.

A lie? Wow, you're quick to fling accusations and assumptions around, aren't you? How is my statement a lie? If I'm mistaken, show me how. If you have proof that I am lying, show it. Otherwise, go to hell with your accusations.
They obviously don't just care about short-term profits. Corporations make long-term investments time and time again. They expand, risking profits for future benefits, and sometimes they contract, forsaking some lines of business to stabilise themselves.

None of this is relevant. Your recitation of how things are supposed to work does not address my statements that it isn't working.
It's not? You're claiming that corporations only care about short-term profits. I explain to you that this cannot be the case, and you tell me it's not relevant.

I have. I've read lots of corporate documents, and I've written a few, too. I was a proofreader and legal assistant for nearly 15 years.
I'm not talking about any corporate document, I'm talking about the annual report. One colourful little booklet explaining to the shareholders what's been going on and what's going to happen in the future.
Every single time they talk about long-term prospects, about what they're doing to secure them, and about how they are justified in giving up some short-term profits for greater future ones.

I know how corporations function. I also know how they malfunction, since I spent 15 years producing documents work for the lawyers whose job it was to pull their asses out of the fire when they fucked up.
Why then can't you keep an overview over the way these things are run then?
The reason corporations (aside from the liability thing) are special is because ownership and management is divided. The owners are the shareholders, who elect a board of directors to act on their behalf.
And that board then employs people to be CEOs and so on. And the CEOs then run the company, reporting to the board.

Fine. Keep ignoring reality if you like. Ignore the real effect of when a corporation bases itself in the Caymen Islands and then claims that as a reason why it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of whatever country it gets itself into trouble in.
You know, I'm not all that sure there are many major corporations with headquarters in the Cayman Islands. But then, it certainly makes for good rhetoric...
However, there is a great financial services industry there, thanks to both a low tax rate and a good regulatory system. Or to quote the IMF:
"An extensive program of legislative, rule and guideline development has introduced an increasingly effective system of regulation, both formalising earlier practices and introducing enhanced procedures," noted IMF assessors. The report further stated that "the supervisory system benefits from a well-developed banking infrastructure with an internationally experienced and qualified workforce as well as experienced lawyers, accountants and auditors," adding that, "the overall compliance culture within Cayman is very strong, including the compliance culture related to AML [anti money-laundering] obligations...".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_islands#Financial_services_industry

And keep on calling other people liars to cover the fact that you are just spinning a bunch of free-market bullshit.
Hehe, you know...so far no one in history has been able to provide a working argument against that bullshit.

I've given you my background for how I know what I'm saying. If you know better, tell us how you know it. Who knows? You might shut me up. Anything is possible.
I'm now in the third year of my dual degree in Economics and Business Management. I'm also a minor shareholder in three corporations, and very actively involved in them (ie I send my votes by mail and so on).

Measure T

Its gonna go down in flames at the State and Federal Supreme Court levels I predict


Section 1. Name.
The name of this Ordinance shall be the "Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Our Right to Fair Elections and Local Democracy."

Section 2. Authority.
This Ordinance is adopted and enacted pursuant to the authority guaranteed to the people of Humboldt County by all relevant state and federal Constitutions and laws, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) The California Constitution, Article I, Section 1, which states: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

(b) The California Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which states: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require."

(c) The people's historical memory of Article XII, Section 8, found in the California Constitution for almost a century, from 1879 to 1972, which stated: ".the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be so abridged or construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such a manner as to infringe the rights of individuals or the general well-being of the state."

(d) The United States Constitution, and the 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which recognize and secure the fundamental and inalienable right of people to govern themselves.

Section 3. Findings and General Purpose.
1) In a Democratic Republic all legitimate political power is held by the people, and government exercises just power only with the consent of the governed. The people create their government for their protection and benefit, and retain their right to alter their government whenever they deem the public good requires it.

2) Only natural persons possess civil and political rights. Corporations are creations of state law and possess no legitimate civil or political rights.

3) Courts have illegitimately defined corporations as "persons," allegedly vesting corporations with constitutional protections and rights. The unconstitutional doctrines of "corporate personhood" and "corporate constitutional rights" illegitimately deny the people of Humboldt County the ability to exercise our fundamental political rights.

4) Corporate contributions in electoral politics interfere with the right of the people to create and maintain the institutions needed for democratic self-governance.

5) The people of Humboldt County make the affirmative legislative finding that corporate contributions in elections are imminently undermining our democratic processes, and are denigrating rather than protecting First Amendment interests.

6) The people of Humboldt County make the affirmative legislative finding that corporate contributions in elections pose a genuine threat to the confidence of the citizenry of Humboldt County in our government.

7) The people of Humboldt County make the affirmative legislative finding that non-local corporate contributions are undermining our democratic processes, creating the appearance of impropriety and corruption, and are causing the people of Humboldt County to lose confidence in the integrity of our elections and in our government.

8) Corporations whose owners and employees reside in our local community are more accountable to the people who live here. People who do not live in Humboldt County should not be allowed to use their positions of corporate control and ownership to influence or undermine local elections through their corporate financial resources. This outside influence is unfair and undemocratic, and it is causing the people of Humboldt County to lose confidence in the integrity of our elections and in our government.

Section 4. Specific Purpose.
The specific purpose of this Ordinance is to prohibit non-local corporations from making direct or indirect contributions and independent expenditures in all elections within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County, including candidate campaigns, initiatives, referendums and recalls.

Section 5. Prohibitions.
Non-local corporations shall be prohibited from paying or contributing, directly or indirectly, any money, property, compensated service of its officers or employees, independent expenditures, or any other thing of value for the purpose of:

a) Promoting or defeating the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County; or

b) Promoting or defeating any initiative, referendum or recall election within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County, California.

Section 6. Statement of Law.
The Prohibitions in Section Five shall not apply to any election in which the jurisdiction includes counties other than Humboldt County, California.

Section 7. Statement of Law.
The Prohibitions in Section Five shall apply to all municipalities, districts and special districts in which the jurisdictions are located wholly within the geographical boundaries of Humboldt County, California.

Section 8. Statement of Law.
No corporation shall be entitled to claim corporate constitutional rights or protections in an effort to overturn this law.

Section 9. Statement of Law.
Nothing in this Ordinance prevents individual corporate employees, trustees, directors, or shareholders from voluntarily and without coercion by the corporation contributing their own personal money or uncompensated services in elections to the extent allowed under state and federal campaign finance laws.

Section 10. Exemptions.
1) Local corporations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

2) Local labor organizations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

3) Local nonprofit organizations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

Section 11. Definitions.
Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following words and phrases in this Ordinance shall have the following meaning:

CORPORATION: An organization incorporated under the laws of the State of California or holding a Certificate of Authority to do Business within the State of California; or an organization incorporated under the laws of any state in the United States; also includes limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies; also includes organizations operating as nonprofits as defined by the Internal Revenue Service Code and Regulations, with the exception of political parties.

LOCAL CORPORATION: A corporation in which all employees reside in Humboldt County, and has its primary place of business in Humboldt County, and has its corporate headquarters located in Humboldt County, and all shares of stock (if any) are owned by individuals residing in Humboldt County, and no portion of the corporation is owned by another corporation.

LOCAL LABOR ORGANIZATION: A labor organization as defined by the National Labor Relations Act in which at least one member resides in Humboldt County. Also includes labor unions and trade unions with at least one member who resides in Humboldt County.

LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION: An organization classified as a nonprofit organization under Internal Revenue Service Code and Regulations in which all members of the board of directors reside in Humboldt County.

NON-LOCAL CORPORATION: Any corporation or organization that does not meet the above definition of "Local Corporation" or "Local Labor Organization" or "Local Nonprofit Organization."

PERSON or PEOPLE: Human beings.

Section 12. Enforcement.
Any non-local corporation found to have contributed directly or indirectly any money, property, compensated service of its officers or employees, independent expenditures, or any other thing of value to political campaigns, initiatives, referendums shall pay to the County of Humboldt ten (10) times the amount the corporation inappropriately contributed.

If any non-local corporation is found to have contributed (directly or indirectly) more than $25,000 to any political campaigns, initiatives or referendums in violation of this Ordinance, the Humboldt County District Attorney shall petition the California Attorney General to:

a) Initiate a charter revocation proceeding against the corporation if the corporation is chartered in California, or

b) Initiate a proceeding to revoke the corporation's Certificate of Authority to do Business in California if the corporation is not chartered in California.

Any violation of this Ordinance shall give rise to a mandatory duty on the part of the District Attorney to enforce this Ordinance. If the District Attorney fails to bring an action to enforce this Ordinance, any natural person residing in Humboldt shall have standing before the Court for enforcement as described in Section 13.

Section 13. Citizen Suits.
This Ordinance creates and vests in every citizen of Humboldt County the right to sue to compel compliance with this Ordinance. All actions shall be brought in the Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt.

Citizen-Plaintiffs shall notify the District Attorney in writing of their intent to sue, and the District Attorney shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the notice to initiate an action to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance. Action by the District Attorney following that notice shall supplant the ability to file a citizen suit, but if the District Attorney does not diligently pursue the litigation, the right of the Citizen-Plaintiffs to initiate a suit shall not be impaired.

Section 14. Severability.
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is determined to be illegal, invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision of the court shall not affect or invalidate any of the remaining sections or provisions of this Ordinance. It is the express intent of the people of Humboldt County, California that this Ordinance would have been adopted if such illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional section or provision had not been included.

Section 15. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption by the voters.

Section 16. Interpretation.
In the event this Ordinance requires interpretation (by courts, county officials, or anyone else), it is the express intent of the people of Humboldt County that this Ordinance be construed in such a manner to carry out the original intent of this Initiative, which is to eliminate non-local corporate influence from the Humboldt County electoral process.

You see, the problem is that people want living standards to be higher.

cross-cultural evidence?

Just because some people become rich doesn't force anyone else to become rich, they can continue to live in squalor as they have before. But they don't.

and when the rich start claiming ownership of all the land and denying others access to the resources necessary for life...?

the fact that people strive to at least keep on par with those in their communities is an outgrowth of our evolved egalitarian drives, not any innate desire to have more stuff.

Not really. You see, the problem is that people want living standards to be higher. Just because some people become rich doesn't force anyone else to become rich, they can continue to live in squalor as they have before. But they don't. Capitalism doesn't force people to work for a living, life does.No. Sociologists have long been aware that "poverty" and "wealth" are social distinctions, not purely economic ones.

This would be no real problem if, as you say, "some people" can become rich (if they want) without affecting others. Unfortunately, the problem is (as Hobbes saw) that wealth is inseparable from power--where you have one, you have the other. Thus, when some people become rich, they do not--cannot--leave the condition of others unchanged.

cross-cultural evidence?
That people would rather be better off materially than worse off?
I suppose this is going into the Anarcho-Primitivism again. Suffice to say that I think the lifestyle of primitive tribes is grossly overvalued by people who've never known anything but their comfortable and sheltered lives.

I'll pick up on your other point below.

Unfortunately, the problem is (as Hobbes saw) that wealth is inseparable from power--where you have one, you have the other. Thus, when some people become rich, they do not--cannot--leave the condition of others unchanged.
Two things we need to look at then.

Firstly, why is it that money is power?
Could it be that those with money basically have the ability to provide some benefit to those without? Isn't that what trade is all about? Is there something wrong with that?
If you think about it, it is not the existence of rich people that creates inequality in power or social life, it is the fact that poor people see this wealth and would like to have it themselves (Hobbes or not, I have to admit I never read him). If they weren't after money, they wouldn't approach those who have it and start working for them.
No - you're going to say - this society with rich people who own stuff forces others to do this, otherwise they would starve. They don't do it because they want to, but because they have to.
But if there were no rich people, could everyone just sit back and relax all day? No, they couldn't. They'd still have to go and hunt, or farm or fight wild animals for their lives. The fact that people these days work in exchange for money rather than for the creation of material goods and services that they consume themselves is due to specialisation. And Adam Smith has shown a long time ago that specialisation is simply a better way of using resources...and would therefore always come out on top. Call it evolution, if you want.

And secondly, well there are two kinds of Libertarians out there. There are the Austrians who will do what I have done above and try to argue about human nature and morality.
And there are the more pragmatic ones, like at the CSE. And they basically say that there simply is no better alternative.
So, if you say that people being able to gather material wealth and become rich relative to those who gather less creates power differences, which is presumably a bad thing (I don't think so)...then what is your alternative? Are you going to forbid people from gathering material wealth, just to protect the right of others not to have to work quite as much to that end? How is that fair?
You're always going to hurt a party - either those who want to work hard for material wealth, or those who would be content with less material wealth and perhaps a more relaxed sort of life. Doesn't it make objective sense though (from an "advance humanity" sort of view) to "punish" the relaxed, rather than the ambitious?

That people would rather be better off materially than worse off?
I suppose this is going into the Anarcho-Primitivism again. Suffice to say that I think the lifestyle of primitive tribes is grossly overvalued by people who've never known anything but their comfortable and sheltered lives.

primmies don't enter into it. everywhere that it has come up (which is literally everywhere), 'primitive peoples' have fought and died attempting to maintain their 'materially worse off' lifestyles.

or, to quote the free papua movement,

"We do not want modern life!
We refuse any kinds of development:
religious groups, aid agencies, and governmental organisations
just Leave Us Alone, Please!"

Firstly, why is it that money is power?

because it directly affects the ability of people to achive their various goals.

everywhere that it has come up (which is literally everywhere), 'primitive peoples' have fought and died attempting to maintain their 'materially worse off' lifestyles.
And by the same token, primitive peoples everywhere are complaining that their traditional lifestyles are dying out because people keep either leaving the communities, or bring back modern gadgets and ways.

And by the same token, primitive peoples everywhere are complaining that their traditional lifestyles are dying out because people keep either leaving the communities, or bring back modern gadgets and ways.

that's a typically post conquest and subjugation problem, and is driven largely by the facts of the subjugation - forced removal from traditional lands, the banning of hunting, being legally required to work in the cash economy or pay rent, mandatory integrated schooling, and, of course, the incredibly bleak social situation found among every subjugated indigenous group on the planet.