Abolish Corporations

TDB's picture

The Daily Bell 
Abolish Corporations  

Don’t Lower Corporate Taxes. Abolish Them … Lowering the corporate tax rate appears to be all the rage. Donald Trump has promised a cut to 15 percent from 35 percent in the U.S., and British Prime Minister Theresa May has pledged to make the U.K.’s corporate tax the lowest in the G-20, which would mean taking it lower than Trump intends to … Now that business-friendly governments appear to have some leeway, they should go back to the old idea of eliminating corporate levies and just taxing personal income and consumption. – Bloomberg

Bloomberg is suggesting in this article that corporate taxes should be abolished because corporations will make more money and that in turn will benefit their workers and society generally.

But what the West’s newly “populist” governments ought to do is abolish the regulatory and judicial decisions that create such gargantuan and abusive entities in the first place.

The efficacy and necessity of corporations is a fundamental elite meme. Capitalism naturally gives rise to corporate power, or so we are told. When corporations behave badly, that is a “market failure.” This is one reason we need equally big governents.

But even a cursory look at history – especially US history,  as the US began without corporate might – gives us a clear insight into how corporations evolved within the context of modern technocracy.

Without a series of judicially enforced decions, corporations likely would not exist, certainly not as they are.

Once jettisoned, true prosperity could begin to rise up and wealth would gradually be redistributed more equitably. Technological and medical breakthroughs would be available, not repressed. People’s lives would once more revolve around culture, family and real achievement instead of big government and even bigger businesses.


“The corporate tax is justified as a means to control the excessive accumulation of power in the hands o corporate management, which is inconsistent with a properly functioning liberal democratic polity,” Reuven Avi-Yonah of the University of Michigan Law School wrote in a 2004 paper defending the tax.

“People understand that corporations are powerful and that the corporate tax is one way in which the state, as representative of the people, can limit their power.”

… There are other ways governments can keep corporations in check — for example, through environmental, safety and labor regulations, which U.S. Republicans and Brexiters dislike but which ultimately benefit consumers in a way the corporate tax doesn’t.

The above provides some fairly lamentable logic. Corporations don’t need to be taxed in order to be controlled. They don’t need to be restrained by environmental and safety regulations.

They need to be subject to marketplace competition. And they are not.

Shrink the power of corporations in three ways.

  • Get rid of “corporate personhood."
  • Get rid of intellectual property rights.
  • Get rid of central banking.

Also, reduce ridiculous regulatory structures that further retard competition and entrepreneurship.

Strip away legal “decisions” that have built the West into a neo-fascist environment dominated by a handful of vast governments and even bigger businesses.

Why should Apple dominate the telephone market and ruin the lives of workers exploited amidst relentless working conditions in horrible Asian factories?

Why should Facebook and Google – both initially funded by the CIA and probably still controlled by American intel agencies – dominate the Internet?

Why should Facebook in particular somehow have grown into the world’s dominant, Western editorial force? Because Zuckerberg is a fabulously literate and accomplished writer?

No, these  corporations are representative of exactly what Thomas Jefferson and other American founders feared when they refused to give fedgov power over corporations and instead parceled out authority to the states.

Until the Civil War, corporations in the US were almost non-existent. Entrepreneurship was at a high, people worked individually or in partnerships (often in agriculture) and the competitive marketplace was a determinant factor in people’s lives rather than the current, monstrous federal government.

Jefferson and the others feared such entities as the British East India Tea Company that ripped apart India and grew so powerful it fielded its own army.

You can see some other articles on the corporate “meme” here, here and here.

It certainly is a meme, this idea that only a handful of individuals ought to manage the world’s industrial might. Additionally, we’re sure the bios of these individuals are exaggerated far beyond reality. Such technocrats are always geniuses, supposedly so …

The current corporate environment is not conducive to freedom but to the further growth of the fascist/technocratic model favored by a handful of banking families dedicated to building globalism.

Conclusion: Bloomberg gets some 0f it right: Corporations are indeed too powerful. But reducing their taxes isn’t the answer. Get rid of the judicial and government decisions that unfairly prop them up and allow a measure of real competition and entrepreneurship to return to Western markets.

Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is giving away a silver coin and a silver "white paper" to subscribers. If you enjoy DB's articles and want to stay up-to-date for free, please subscribe here

More from The Daily Bell: Rand Corp. Blasts ‘Truth Decay’ – Wants Facts Determined by Appropriate Leaders

From Populism to Fake News – The Psyop Continues 

Elites Plot to Replace Austrian Free-Market Economics?



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

How about we start by taking away corporation's 'personhood' and their legal rights as persons?

Corporations are simply groups of people working together.

American Snipper's picture

Cutting the taxes is a novel idea, the rest is tripe...corporations are people!

American Snipper's picture

Cutting the taxes is a novel idea, the rest is tripe...

bluskyes's picture

The societal upheaval of dissolving, and outlawing corporate entities would be unlike anything, anyone has ever seen, with the posiible exception of the bombing of Dresden, and the nuclear bombing of Japan.

Persons would cease to exist. Statutes, and bylaws would have no effect.

I would support such a measure.

nc551's picture

Corporations are a scam, just an idea used to initiate violence against others, like everything.

Dark Daze's picture
Dark Daze (not verified) Nov 29, 2016 8:33 PM

At the very least, no corporation should have equivalent rights as citziens. They are there to serve the citizens, or so I though, until Uncle Milty came along.

mabuhay1's picture

This is a really bad idea.  Corporations are nothing more than an entity that allows groups to pool money in order to reach economy of scale sufficient to carry out large projects and efficiently utilize mass production technology.  The profits earned are partially retained to maintain and grow the corporation, and the rest are paid out as dividends to the people who actually own the corporation through stock ownership.  Taxing a corporation does not tax those people... the owners of the capital.  It taxes the end users of the products of the corporation.  It is nothing more than a stealth tax upon the public at large.

Do you really believe that taxes paid by a corporation are not passed through to the end users, the buyers of the corporation's products or services?

If you don't like the way management of corporations take advantage of their positions, then, by all means, find a better way to organize capital so that it can be used to fund mega projects and expensive equipment needed for mass production.  If you actually develop a better way, you could get your name in the history books as the creator of a better way of doing business. A way of doing business that better serves mankind.



Infnordz's picture

Get rid of “corporate personhood." It's a disgusting and abusive perversion of human rights laws and grossly unfair to living human beings.

Forbid the corruption of gifts from business funds, including charity/donations and bogus contract payments, because they are not people; only living people should be allowed to do this from their own funds. This measure may significant reduce most corruption via lobbying.

Abolish all intellectual property rights for businesses except for entity secrets and business identifiers, and at most only allow IP for a /living/ human for a limited period of their life i.e. no inheritance/transfer of IP to other living people or other entities. IP breeds monopolies and can easily come into conflict with physical property rights, which is often unfair.

Abolish or significantly reduce the allowance of Limited Liability for companies and make it conditional on honourable behaviour, something which a lot of corporations don't demonstrate because they are forced to behave like a psychopath for shareholder gain. Staff and shareholders must face real costs for external harm, not just customers and other external living humans!

Make all established employees cooperative shareholders, so that they develop a keep interest in the honour and success of the business.

Abolish all Political Correctness regulations from business, especially positive discrimination, because it has led to a warped/harmful working environment and inappropriate people doing some work, only regulate for fairness, merit, and common law.

truthalwayswinsout's picture

All that really needs to be done is to be able to put to death corporations that violate laws.

Most of the banks would have faced the death penalty along with most of Wall Street.

johnjkiii's picture

Dreamers can dream but it would take a real revolution to get to real capitalism and the masses are too cozy in their comfortable living rooms watch mind numbing TV and listening to the morons in the media.

milo_hoffman's picture

Yes, as stated here, If you learn some history, you will learn that Corporations were very much disliked and hated by the Founders.

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was ONLY granted very selectively and for a very limited time and only for a single event in order to enable activities that directly benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books in many states, though unused) like these:

- Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

- Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

- Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

- Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.


For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion.

Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power...."

Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence.

milo_hoffman's picture

Its obvious, that corporations are not something that is needed in a REALLY free market.

FA Hayek wrote in "Road to Serfdom" and predicted nearly 100 years ago that markets would become dominated by large corporations the bigger that government became. The bigger the govt the more large corps and the fewer small businesses. He explains why central planning leads to this sort of market, and he did it before hardly any corporations even existed.

The problem is that big government loves big corporations. Big government is all about controlling the economy, controlling the people, and controlling the means of production. The central planners and socialists love corporations. In this market, with a few big corporations they only have to arm twist, make back-room deals with them, enact special regulations that the corporations are in favor of because in addition to costing them some efficiency, they also create large barriers to entry in the market which they are very much in favor of, etc.. to achieve their central planning and control. If the market was made up of many smaller independent businesses it would be almost impossible for them to exert so much control over the marketplace.

Central planning of the economy would not work if the market was full of many small businesses run by individuals. They can't control that, too many mom and pops would tell the socialist planners to just fck off.

The next time you hear a politician complaining about "big x", "corporate greed", or "powerful x"....remember....they are lying through their teeth. They need big corporations and markets centralized into a small number of massive entities, more than anyone else in order to achieve their political visions of central planning.

In a REALLY free market, without government interference, then corporations would not exist. In fact without government interference in the free market, corporations CANNOT exist. Corporations by their very existence is massive government interference in the free market.

Many libertarians believe that corporations should be eliminate. Without all the special rights and privileges given to corporations, business would be far less likely to do things without fear of getting caught. Imagine if real people would be on the line for their own money, and be personally responsible for the actions of their business just like the way that sole proprietors are, and not some nameless, faceless corporate person-hood.

Given that the us founders hated corporations and there were many laws against them for a long time. We should go back to that.

Remember: The corporation is given all it's special power and privileges by the government. Whenever you hear any politicians complain about "big business" they are full of shit. Big government loves big business. They are easy to control and easy to use for centrally planning the economy, compared to a marketplace with many smaller businesses in it.

It's not libertarians who are pro-corporations, it's really the central planners and statists.

BlussMann's picture

A genius idea !  Abolish these abominations. I'm sick of PC/Marxist CEO's milking the shareholders and ultimately taxpayers for outrageous compensation. I'm sick of the all Negro advertising as well.

AVmaster's picture

lol, this article is rediculous...


This isn't the 1700's or 1800's. There will not be another east india... Maybe in africa you might have one where the government is WEAK. But not here.


Try again left looney...