This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Are Corporations People?
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
Are Corporations People?
I have always found something inherently creepy about Mitt Romney — indeed, in a choice between Obama and Romney with a gun to my head, the gun looks like an increasingly attractive proposition. Most puzzling is his defence of corporate personhood:
Corporations are people, my friend… Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people
Do corporations breathe? Do they eat, sleep, feel and think? Do they require housing? Do they have families? Or medical care? Do they pay income tax? Do they have DNA? Eyes? Ears? Teeth? Has Texas ever executed one?
No. Corporations are not people. Corporations are composed of people, and for a very good reason. From Wikipedia:
Limited liability is a concept whereby a person’s financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person’s investment in a company or partnership with limited liability. In other words, if a company with limited liability is sued, then the plaintiffs are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of their investment in that company.
Corporations essentially exist to allow groups of people to act collectively, without taking personal responsibility if the entire thing goes down like a lead balloon. Sure, if an employee of a corporation behaves in a criminal manner, they are sometimes jailed. Yet corporations — ever since the birth of the modern corporation through Standard Oil — have created what is known as the agency problem. Corporations allow their owners to win, without the possibility of deep losses. And what does this mean in terms of responsibility? It means that things like the BP Oil spill are much, much more likely. Because if you can’t get hurt, you’re not going to exercise diligence in the same way you would if you could get more hurt. This is why the juggernauts of global industry — the titans of Wall Street in particular — blow up so frequently and so violently. Corporations are firewalls, spinning mammoth profits through risky bets, but allowing management and shareholders to hide behind them when their risky behaviour comes home to roost. And what happens if the house falls down? The creditors — or more frequently in recent years since we adopted this perverse bailout culture, the taxpayer — take the hit. The philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote on his Facebook page:
Hammurabi’s code, ~3800 years ago, removed the agency problem as a condition for transaction: “If a builder builds a house and the house collapses and causes the death of the owner – the builder shall be put to death. If it causes the death of the son of the owner , a son of that builder shall be put to death.” Everything in past 100 years has been to shield managers from liabilities. Think of Fukushima.
Either limited liability should be abolished — corporations could still exist, but their owners and management are personally responsible for any debts and destruction incurred — or their behaviour should be taxed punitively to encourage individual and small business initiatives — the real wealth creators, job creators and innovators — over large scale destructo-juggernauts. At the very least, we should completely stop bailing them out when they blow up. That’s responsibility.
Corporations are certainly not free market entities. Their very reason for existence — limited liability — is created through government fiat. Capitalism and markets existed long before the creation of limited liability, and surely will exist for a long time after its demise.
»
- 14943 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
+1 Hayek . . . Hayek?
Douche and Turd? You decide @ SouthPark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofwhn5h51ag
Please note: Corporations were forced out of the country by a high corporate tax [indeed offshoring is part of doing business in a global economy, but alot of corporations would have stayed if not for k-street politics] half these politician's are fringe socialist/communist
Ps. Obama must go, period! *[knowing the devil in the flesh is no better than the devils ghost shading his adversaries weaknesses with mercurial xenophobic distinction]
ps2. obama is not a leader -- he is a duplicity of herbert hoover that created more complexities than he fixed,... digging us deeper into the abyss is he - whilst the country rots within!
jmo
thanks aziz , but no cigar tonight :-))
Sounds like a bunch of commie crap to me.
question for the Hedgians:
one can find online the stats for numbers of bankruptcies
http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/bankruptcystatistics.aspx
and the assets of the bankrupt entities
http://www.bankruptcydata.com/product_files/PR_010612.pdf
but where do you find the amount of debts/liabilities that disappear into the banking-medium darkness each month/quarter/year due to bankruptcies? whether corporate only, or corporate plus individual.
a pretty graph or chart would be admired by all. thanks in advance.
What an interesting concept.
I am not sure it is right to say it "disappears." Someone got it.
in a bankruptcy the reciever moves in and bayonets the wounded, then the lawyers move in a strip the bodies
and and and ..
who is it that cuts off the head and defecates down the throat
that's gross
That would be the citizen representatives who pass the bankruptcy laws.
What a piss poor article.
I do agree on the hook of it: the decision to treat corporations as people regarding political "donations" has been a perversion of law.
However, there were good reasons the law historically came to treat companies (not just corporations!) like people, and if only to not invent a complete new set of laws for companies. (Keep it simple!)
One would need to look at both parts (definitions of corporations/definitions of donation limit enforcement) to propose a viable fix. Hint: more complexity is not the answer.
But John, putting into question or trying to revolutionize a pillar of western economies without good reason, and without presentation of possible and likely negative side effects, is just bullshit.
Some examples:
1.) Karl Denninger proposes "one Dollar of capital [reserves for each dollar lent]." But what good does that do if we have fiat currency? Wouldn't lending be almost completely strangled? Should insurance companies also need to possess capital for all possible claims occurring at once, before selling a single policy?
2.) John Aziz proposes revoking corporation's limited liability status. How would anything larger ever get built which costs surpasses the wealth of a single, or a small group of, people?
3.) I am now just waiting for someone here on ZH to seriously call for prohibition of any kind of interest to be charged on lent assets. Just look at Muslim countries (where Qur'an forbids charging interest): that worked out really well there, their societies are a shining example of how things should be, right?
What we need is:
- everyone is allowed to fail
- accounting without loopholes and opacity, and standards which don't change quickly with the latest fashion
- a non-manipulated currency
- enforcement of the law
and not even more crazy "solutions" that lead to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
maybe the muslim countries would be doing better if we didn't overthrow their governments everytime they try to act in the interest of their people bucko....in the name of guess who? international corporations.....
There is a thing called history. You might want to consider it instead of just drawing conclusions from the last few decades you might have experienced yourself in the news.
Did the downturn of Islamic culture start with their government(s) being overthrown by foreign powers?
Muslims are backward because their religion--which is really more of a political system-- is grotesquely deficient and morally degenerate.
If you remove the limited liability feature of corporations, you would have to compensate somehow. It might be possible to remove the liability shield and cancel all corporate taxes to compensate. But I would not advocate such measures, myself.
These posts are silly, I prefer to not get caught up in semantics.
The issue, regardless of scale, is accountability and responsible, non-coercive action.
Copy Dat
Next up: ban the church choir. They're a group of people who get together for a common purpose. They sound much better as a group. But what happens when one person in the group screws up? The whole thing sounds like shit and we all have to put up with it. Sometimes people in the choir screw up, but you can't notice it. Or they don't sing loudly enough. They just let the other choir members pick up the slack. This is obviously the agency problem. Get rid of them.
Limited liability applies to the provider of the capital, not the individual managers of the entity. If someone does something illegal, they can go to jail. But you limit the balance sheet to those responsible for the decision making. Theres no reason to go after a shareholder of BP because some engineer fucked up.
Mr. Aziz (& ZH) - terrific piece. Long overdue.
A key issue in that most all concerned (incl. Tea Party & Occupy) are in complete agreement here.
Well done.
One might argue that any "entitiy" (corporate or individual or otherwise) that is taxed deserves the ability to speak freely for or against the taxation.
Solution: Stop taxing corporations (since ultimately they do not pay taxes, but just collect taxes from individual customers and shareholders). Then they will have significantly less need for free speech or lobbying. I think that is a trade corporations would make.
Bonus: Applying taxes directly only to individuals (voters) they may be more upset about the amount of taxes they pay (which is now partially buried in the price of everything they buy) and be more irritated about the expansive scope of government and demand less of it.
Anyone who supports corporations as "people" is a corrupt tool of corporations. The stance is absurd on it's face and about as dangerous a concept as has ever been accepted in this country. The choice between Mitt and Barry is indeed an odiferous one... who will preside over the collapse, default and depression... Mitt has the Al Gore syndrome... he is an elitist with no personality. Barry, on the other hand, is acting like a muslim dictator in a very poorly written trajedy... I think I will write in Ron Paul... useless, but for my own self-respect.
I have said I will not vote, but I think I will write in Ron Paul too.
Fuckers.
I'm writing Dr. Paul in.
Wouldn't it be awesome if so many people wrote in Ron Paul, he got more votes than the other two posers? ;-)
Wouldn't that pose a conundrum on the PTB? ;-0
I was not going to vote this time around, but I think I'll join you in the Write-In vote.
Yes, decided to do so long ago.
a write-in vote for anyone in any office is the best way for the common folk to influence an election. why? most voting machines can't compute write-in ballots and will literally spit them out and force the ballot to be counted by hand.
Corporate personhood is a complete absurdity. How could judges, senators, representatives mistake a metaphoric personhood for a real one, a corporation for a human? Uh, what's to argue? Let's let B and B explain the issue.
"Hey Beanbrain, I think this chick corporaton wants to do it."
"Hey yourself Buttbreath, what am I supposed to do with a corporation? Hump a letter head?"
"Who can shag better than a corporation? I mean they, uh, uh, uh, shag everbody?"
"No not that way! Any human, dork! Even that girl down the street is better. At least she's a real shag."
eh,he,he,he,eh,he.
So you want to eliminate all pensions, endowments, non-profit trusts, and 401ks? All major Bain investors. LETS GET STUPID!
No need to dismantle the benefits anymore than the need to kill your dad just because he's an asshole. We just take away their "Get out of jail free" cards and probably their car keys.
Also, they have to send all their lobbyists home now that the party's over.
It's not about size. It's about how you use what you have. And today's multinational corporation, whether too big or not quite big enough, isn't into consensual fucking.
My fantasy, right after a government grant to buy a pony, is that corporate officers are once again made legally responsible for the actions of their corporation. Just like in the good old days where the parents were held responsible for the irresponsible actions of their kids.
Science fiction stuff. But as always, if I can dream it up, somebody could do it if they wanted to.
Name one bad thing a corporation has ever done to you directly.
I hear a loud honking sound.
Clown Car Alert.
Woop, woop, woop.
Okay, now I'll try to pretend that this was a serious question rather than abuse.
Are YOU FUCKING KIDDING? I'm assuming you have never worked for a "corporation" let along had business dealings with same.
Although I must admit that one has never, to the best of my knowledge, ever tried to have me killed.
Browbeaten, threatened, humiliated, robbed, cheated, yes. But attempted murder is not on that list. But then, I'm just a little fishy who was only trying to do her duty at various corporations.
And no, it wasn't, of course, the corporation itself doing the shit. It was merely minions acting with a sometimes religious fervor on BEHALF of the corporation, using the corporation's legal cover as personal cover for their otherwise immoral and sometimes very illegal actions.
Been the employee, been the founder. Corporations are not nice people.
And before anybody says they were just unknown bad examples, I will drop the names CBS and Ford as people who have signed my paychecks. Plus a myriad of other companies just as big and not as nearly as evil (Sony), or smaller but still smelly.
So nothing.
Toot toot. That's the logic train leaving the station on you.
So you were the employee? New flash: quit your job if you don't like it. You're not forced to work if or anyone and they in turn are not forced to employ you. Unless of course if you were union at Ford and if then fuck off, act live a thug, get treated like a thug.
The whole point of limited liability is to displace negative consequences onto society at large. Consequently, everyone currently alive has felt significant negative effects from corporations. It just happens indirectly so nobody notices.
I believe this was the question that was asked. Which part of the answer was unclear?
Yeah, I eventually did quit those jobs for various reasons. But that wasn't the question. The question was:
Thanks for playing. You didn't win, but you get a copy of our home game to enjoy, and to remind you of your time here.
Too bad dead people can't post here, or they might say, "refuse to pay for treatment to save my life".
A bad idea, but with a positive point if it means Richard Trumka goes to jail when next a union thug draws blood.
Far better and more important than people.
Corporations are not people. Nor does government at this point represent people. Government represents the interest of government ( those most directly in that game and 'winning'). Corporations represent the interest of corporations and those most directly in that game and 'winning'.
The entire system is a disaster and needs to fail. You don't have a government at this point. You have a criminal gang extorting your children's life in exchange for them keeping their fake existence pretending to be against the corporations. The corporations they work for. Barack fucking Obama is every bit as much or more a tool as rawmoney.
We don't have good 'collective' choices anymore.
It's going to hurt any way we turn.
Bring the pain.
While I in no way would condone the criminal behavior of any individual or corporation I believe that any person or entity that has a tax levied upon them should at the very least have the freedom of speech. I have a small business in a major city and live in the burbs. I pay thousands a year yet have no ability to vote in any city elections that would impact me. Get government out of business and we will get business out of government.
'corporations' and 'entities' don't commit crimes or cause damage to others, people do.
The corporation is a legal fiction created for the purpose of providing cover to certain individuals.
Certain powerfull interests use government to get what they want, including the suppression of competitors. John D Rockeller said "Competition is a sin."
The top talent in business runs circles around most people in government. Who runs the greater overall game? Big business doesn't want government out of business, its to their advantage.
At the very top there is no difference between big govt and big insider corporations, personnel move freely from one to the other and back again.The merging together of big govt and big corporate interests to the detriment of the rest of the citizenry is known as fascism.
Black widow spiders don't kill. Their venom does. At least sometimes.
This doesn't mean black widow spiders should be allowed free run of the place.
No
They are not people.
Well the citizens of fraud street are up 50 points tonight. Anyone know why? This week looks to shape up like last week.Total bullshit with no reason for anything.
corporations is people!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE
This is actually how things used to be. And banks and their owners also had "double liability". The shareholders, officers and directors had personal liability for the bank or corporation. Kind of focuses your attention, doesn't it?
For those who are missing the point here, corporate personhood is sanctioned criminality - all of the rights associated with individual liberty, but without the direct responsibility/liability that provide essential recourse for other individuals when interests conflict.
The idea/construct of a corporation is not necessarily evil and need not disappear completely, but the modern corporate incarnation has a power/scale to destroy that is not balanced by any comparable degree of responsibility. I see little difference between a public union pension scheme purposefully structured to screw taxpayers and a corporation that does irrepairable damage (for which it could never pay fair consideration) when harvesting irreplacible resources according to the demand for quarterly profits.
A corporate charter is a function of public trust/commonwealth, thus the public must have an absolute, efficient means by which the terms of the charter can be enforced.
When global financial institutions are inevitably proven guilty of massive, long-standing market manipulation, collusion, corruption, and fraud, will the leaders of those corporations be held accountable? No. Which is exactly why those leaders knowingly/purposefully manipulated, colluded, bribed, and defrauded in the first place... they knew perfectly well that they would never be held accountable personally for anything. To the contrary, they are rewarded handsomely for their ability to destroy. There is no disincentive to malevolence - a dangerous position that cannot be tolerated or defended.
Corporations are not central/necessary to capitalism or free enterprise, and should be shielded by the desire to preserve either.
A corporation is a group of individuals. The individuals in the group are doing the acting. They are ultimately responsible for their own actions. But if they do act as part a function of the group, the liability is limited to balance sheet of the group and the individual responsible for the action. There's no reason to go after the entire wealth of someone who merely provided seed capital or purchased shares on the secondary market of the corporation. Without limited liability, owning just one stock in any company could put you at risk of being sued.
Corporate personhood means that a group of individuals retains the same rights as if they were acting individually whilst in the capacity of the group. The sum is not less than the parts.
Au contraire. The sum is WAY LESS than the parts. At least when it comes to restitution for damages and mayhem.
Each individual MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE for the actions of the corporation that they have some say in.
Of course limited liability must exist. As should shared responsibility when the entity created under law turns outlaw.
But this is no longer the case, thanks to years of Supreme Court decisions made by people whose major qualifying attribute was their stance on abortion rights, rather than the rights of the rest of us who have already been born.
You are responsible for your own actions. If a hiring manger hires a cashier that steals from customers, a financial analyst who works in corporate finance has nothing to do with it. He is not responisible just because they work for the same company. Nor is everyone up the corporate structure whom the employee reports to responsible. That's an old feudal consent that the master is responsible for everything his slaves do (Sometimes called a Frankpledge). Sharing responsibility may sound cute, but it really sucks when allow a government to play the guilt by association game.
The point isn't SHARING responsibility. The point is ASSUMING responsibility. It's the adult thing to do. Or at least it used to be until numerous court rulings redefined the meaning of 'adult.'
I can't properlyrespond to this since I am working, but I will recommend "In Defense of the Corporation", by Robert Hessen.
Admit it, you're boss made you write that, right? Looking over your shoulder perhaps?
Hey boss: Free Freewheelin Franklin.
you know who else doesn't like corporations?
Other corporations?
Unions are people, Foundations are people, that is why this subject goes up the moonbats' ass sideways. - Ned
The ridiculous part of corporations (in the state of Delaware at least) is that the corporation must defend all the officers of the company from any legal entanglements. If the company CEO steals from the company through shifty financial dealings then the company must pay all the legal expenses of the accused CEO. Of course, that will bankrupt the company. The company can get stiffed with a $50M legal tab but if the CEO loses he, of course, will have nothing to reimburse the company.
...'cept that Credit Suisse account, the one in the Caymans, that suitcase of kilo bars in the Land Rover.
Where's my cocaine? Who took my cocaine?!
Corporations are Cover
for doing whatever you can get away with apparently
All I know is this, if they are green they are toast.
Corporations pay taxes. People pay taxes. Therefore, corporations is people.
"Corporations dump alot of waste. Elephants dump a lot of waste. Therefore, corporations are elephants"
They never forget I owe them money. I told them I make peanuts.
Until corporate taxes are brought to 0 or acknowledged for what they are(taxes on stakeholders of the firm) corporations deserve personhood. They aren't some inaminate cash cow that the Savior State can loot at its every and any whim.
Corporations are legal forms. As such, they are inanimate objects. They do not "deserve" anything. Their owners certainly deserve some things, their directors and employees deserve some things, the people who own, and work for, their creditors deserve some things, and the people who live near the corporation's facilities deserve some things. The question is always whether people are better off with the current corporate form or some different form.
I will NOT push the play button above to watch that Romney speech. And will avoid similiar pay buttons plastered on Obama.
I'm to the point where I can't stand to listen and watch any freakin' politician today.
They are all full of it to the Max.
Obama is not going to lose. Bank on it. It sucks but that's the plan.
You are waaaaay toooo riiiight!
Maybe . . but then again maybe The Powers That Be - - got as much outta that investment as possible and they want to make a change to keep their game moving forward. That way they can get the other half of those wrapped in the 'left' versus 'right' false paradigm to fall asleep (the conservatives this time). The indicator will be if & how much & how late they goose the economy before the election to help O.
IMO it doesnt really matter what sock puppet they put in.
I am a Corporation. Hath not a Corporation eyes? hath not a Corporation hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Corporation wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Corporation, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
You had me at "I AM"
Sure, corporations are persons and so are governments. They all walk and talk and just crawl on their bellies like reptiles periodically to shed skin.
Anything you can't kill by shooting it in the head should not be allowed to exist among decent human beings.
Corporations are just as people as labor unions are :)
As to creepy, the Obamadisaster is the epitimy of creepy. Nuff said.
You've got some Koch stuck in your teeth.
Reading this article, I was reminded of an excellent writeup in the Hastings Law Review, which I ordered and read some time ago in the pre-internet era. A bit of searching and I found a reprint online: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/mayer_personalizing.html
The fundamental question is whether corporations are "persons" for the purpose of protection under the bill of rights.
In part, that is correct. However, some provisions of the Bill of Rights do not depend on personhood. For example, the First Amendment is a limitation on the powers of Congress (and the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment) that does not depend on citizenship or personhood. This is why Citizens United won at the Supreme Court. Personally, I think the fundamental question comes down to what activities we allow corporations to engage in. We used to say that participation in politics would be outside a corporation's chartered purpose, but that doctrine died out a long time ago.
I'll believe corporations are people when one of them gets blown up by an I.E.D. in Afghanistan or is executed in the State of Texas.
http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-l...
Kinsella wipes the floor of leftists and neo-feudalists. Worth the read if you're actually prepared to read something not by a blowhard economist, but by a law professor.
If I read the IRC correctly, corporate officers ARE the ones specifically noted as subject to taxation.
IRC Section 3401 Definitions
(a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, (Ch. 24 - withholding at the source)
the term "wages" means all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;
(c) Employee. For purposes of this chapter (Chapter 24 - Collection of Income Tax at Source on wages), the term "employee" includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the foregoing.
The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
.....................................................^^^^^^^^
Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupation and upon corporate privileges.' the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of a privilege' U.S. Supreme Court, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107
the munipality of new york city is a corporation. technically then, new york city is a person. i'm naming my kid new york city. we'll have a love hate relationship and that kid will never sleep.
Can a corporation be drafted?
Can a corporation hang for treason?
Can a corporation actually cast a ballot?
The Supreme Court has not spoken on these issues. However, some think that Citizens United must be read as allowing a corporation to cast a ballot and to hold public office.
Justice Thomas was on the bench when he said that, but he was asleep at the time.
I'm not sure there's prescident established with respect to whether or not mumbling and drooling on Scalia's robe can be counted as oral argument.
No, but it can win a no-bid contract for billions while aiding and abetting rape.
Some portion of said billions may end up on your TV screen this summer and fall!
Swiftboat to the groin!
or their behaviour should be taxed punitively...
This was a bizarre non-sequitor. A group of business thugs act badly, so their money should be transferred to taxing thugs?
Are politicians people?
The question was : "Are corporations people ?" ! Corporations ARE people ! A corporation IS people ! A corporation ISN'T a person .... it's a legal fiction .... as in a legal construct! Partnerships ARE people ! A partnership IS people ! A partnership ISN'T a person ! Bugaboo of small socialist minds ! Monedas 1929 Comedy Jihad Self Anointed Holy Ghost Of The Corporate Ether
Is our corporations learning?
the most important reason why corporations are people by lwas, is that it gives corporations the possibility to donate money to political parties, without limit and anonymously. it gives them opportunity to invest in power, to enlarge their profit and to influence politics in their favour.
this law is in the core of the corrupt corporate kleptocratic state. it also proves that romney is part of this bunch. so if this is what you want, vote for the man.
Their right to donate was just affirmed the other day .... unions have had that right forever it seems ! Monedas 1929 I find John Aziz a little creepy ! Obama is definitely creepy !
the most important reason why corporations are people by lwas, is that it gives corporations the possibility to donate money to political parties, without limit and anonymously. it gives them opportunity to invest in power, to enlarge their profit and to influence politics in their favour.
this law is in the core of the corrupt corporate kleptocratic state. it also proves that romney is part of this bunch. so if this is what you want, vote for the man.
When it comes to paying damages .... corporations are a gold mine of responsibility ! If one of Jesse Jackson's illegitimate kids runs over you .... you in deep doo doo !
This is the worst post I've ever read on ZeroHedge.
How do you think individuals and small business initiatives structure? They want the same structures as "corporations" to protect them personally from liabilities of the business. Unfortunately the US is so lawsuit happy, you have to think about ways to protect yourself - let's kill off all the litigation attorneys before we start talking about destroying the framework that every small business in the country is based on.
And to suggest Hammurabi's code applies in today's world is just idiotic - if a house falls on a guy in Atlanta, we should execute the Toll brothers? In today's world the squished guy's family gets well taken care of, and so does his litigation attorney. If it happens a lot, the builder goes out of business. If the construction was particular poor and to blame for the death people go to jail, lose licenses, etc.
Corporations are held accountable, sometimes. Should they be held accountable more? Sure. Where are the regulators "regulating" the mortgage machine (oh yeah, looking at porn)? But you don't have to go far to find multi billion dollar fines and charges (Exxon, BP) to corporations that did wrong or even for executions (MCI, Enron) of the corporate entity. I'm still unclear why the government is so intent on saving so many of the offenders in the mortgage crisis instead of letting their corpses dry out in the streets on pikes, but your portrayal is completely one sided and misguided.
How do you think individuals and small business initiatives structure? They want the same structures as "corporations" to protect them personally from liabilities of the business.
_________________________________
On the spot. What matters is to know whether or not the business is led by US citizens.
Individual, small business, big business, it does not matter. What matters is whether or not they are led by US citizens.
US citizens will always look for ways to dissolve their own responsibility: dilution of responsibility is a central tenet in US citizenism.
A most curious accusation, inasmuch as one can constantly read Americans here blasting and condemning their ruling oligarchic overlords for their innumerable faults and crimes --- while one notable Chinese troll is congenitally incapable of doing the same regarding his own dictatorial ruling regime.
Shameless hypocrisy: the essence of Chinese Citizenism, whose roadside-shitting nature is eternal.
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
F.
If the writer bothered to do the research intsetad of spouting off.
Limited liabiality ONLY applies to shareholders.
Because the Govt. at all levels, does not CHOOSE to prosecute officers of large
corporations personally for wrongdoing.They do it all the time for small companies.
There is no corporate shield for small company officers.
Fact.
Wrong. You are obviously unfamiliar with the legal concept of The Corporate Veil, which protects corporate officers from legal liability. Piercing "the veil" is very difficult. Obviously it's easier to do in a small corp than a big one, but in general, hard to do.
If a stupid North Korean woman scalds her pussy by drinking hot coffee and trying to drive out of a commie fast food joint .... can she recover a million bucks in damages from North Korea Inc. ? Monedas 1929 Comedy Jihad McDonalds is a more responsible citizen of the world than North Korea Inc.
Trick question; no North Korean can afford a cup of coffee, much less a welfare Caddy.
"Capitalism and markets existed long before the creation of limited liability, and surely will exist for a long time after its demise"
Maybe the rise of limited liability is commensurate with the rise in ambulance chasing, blood sucking lawyers.
Oh, by the way, many if not most small business is either a LLP (that would be "limited liability") or a Sub S Corp and for a reason. You don't venture into shark infested waters without a shark cage.
What a jumbled mess this article is. Look back at the context re Romney's line about Corporations being people and stop parroting mindless talking points.
The problem is clearly this bizarre turn towards an expectation that when a business (or sovereign) fails, no investor should take any loss. This is ridiculous and obviously destructive.
bourbondave, couldn't agree more. The article should have stuck to "at the very least" part.
Corporations are not people; they do not have the right to vote.
The Supreme Court is right; money is speech. It's absolutely true that money, in the form of lots of TV ads, can buy elections. And, it's true that it takes more than a million dollars to fund a Senate race. But the PROBLEM is idiots who believe what their TV set is telling them; who can't be bothered to critically-think. The pronouncements of the Tea Party, FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all are riddled with logical errors - but if the general public buys them, well then we'll get the democracy we deserve. Luckily, people do seem to be waking up.
I agree with you - - - though you might have forgotten to add the moronic 'left' to your list of those spouting foolishness to the critically thinking challenged. Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, CNBC, PBS, etc, etc (I have a hard time listing many because I don't watch/listen to any of the mainstream media now).
As the economy continues to crash, more people are likely to figure out theyve been had. One thing Ron Paul has done is educate a lot of young people on such topics as the Federal Reserve, Constitution, and American history. That can only be helpful for the future. Maybe theyll even learn that we don't have a democracy (2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner) but are supposed to have a Republic, with guaranteed and protected individual rights.
The irony in all of this begins with Citizens United a fucking corporation arguing at the Supreme Court that Corporations should not be allowed to lobby their Government.
Are Unions people?
Free speech bitchez, you cannot have it both ways, even a OWS yapper has to buy his marker and poster board cause Office Max don't give the shit away.
Agree - in terms of spending money to influence elections, corporations are essentially groups of people.
The PROBLEM is that many voters are stupid enough to be swayed by TV ads. There's no fix there - the Supreme Court IMO is 100% correct that the GOVERNMENT can't fix a stupid electorate. America has the lowest rate of voter turnout in the world. In the resulting power vacuum those few who give a shit have inordinate power; unfortunately right now it's the wacko special interest groups and a few corrupt corporations. Until Americans wake TF up, we're screwed beyond the capacity of law to fix it. Democracy doesn't work if the electorate is dumb as a plank.
Our Defining Moment
http://shutupnsing.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/precious-time/
Another possibility is to bring back the legal doctrine of ultra vires, which held that a corporation may not do things outside that corporation's chartered purpose. Many of the people-like things that corporate apologists insist corporations should be able to do might be excluded under the doctrine of ultra vires.
As recently as 160 years ago, most corporations were only granted charters for specific purposes, and for a limited time frame (like 10 years).
The trouble started when charters were granted for "any legal purpose" and with no expiration dates.
Wacka doo, wacka doo, wacka doo! Apologies to Wonderama.
imho, the critical question is not whether corporations are people (or not), but whether people are corporations (or not). also, whether those legal fictions of a collection of 'we the peoples' we call governments are (or rather should be) corporations (or not).
of course, as human beings endowed with free will, we should all have a right to become a corporation (or part of) if we wish, however, we all should also have a right to not become a corporation (or part of) if we wish and still be treated equally within that legal fiction.
as usual, this sly reversal is obsfucating the real problem and diverting those who wish to uncover the rotten core down blind alleys.
I think all states give people the right to form, or "become", a corporation. It's very simple. Just file a form with your state's Secretary of State and pay a nominal fee. Voila! tip e. canoe corp.
Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.
[Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)]
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm
one must realize that everytime one exchanges an FRN, one is given the "benefit" of discharging their debt with limited liability. of course, that "benefit" also comes with certain undisclosed costs, such as those that ZH exposes with excuriating detail on a daily basis.
now, is the question who should be stuck with the hot potato when we already know the answer (see Greece) or rather, do the benefits justify the costs and if not, what is the remedy?
Anyone who believes a corporation is a person ,I believe is a terrorist.
Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and theft of human rights
http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequal-protection/index
Here's what corporations used to be:
"In researching nineteenth-century laws regulating corporations, Morrisfound that in Wisconsin, as in most other states at that time:
Nice reminder.
On the day of judgement, do corporations go to hell or heaven?
Since corporations are God, they'll be represented in both convenient locations.
The Law speaks for its self
Citizenship Act R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
6. A citizen, whether or not born in Canada, is entitled to all rights, powers and privileges and is subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a person who is a citizen under paragraph 3(1)(a) is entitled or subject and has a like status to that of such person.
The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.
He also possesses juridical personality.
Civil Code of Québec, LRQ, c C-1991
1.. Every human being possesses juridical personality and has the full enjoyment of civil rights.
1991, c. 64, a. 1.
2. Every person has a patrimony.
The patrimony may be divided or appropriated to a purpose, but only to the extent provided by law.
1991, c. 64, a. 2.
3. Every person is the holder of personality rights, such as the right to life, the right to the inviolability and integrity of his person, and the right to the respect of his name, reputation and privacy.
These rights are inalienable.
305. Every legal person has a name which is assigned to it when it is constituted, and under which it exercises its rights and performs its obligations.
It shall be assigned a name which conforms to law and which includes, where required by law, an expression that clearly indicates the juridical form assumed by the legal person.
I, may be a defendant in this matter and have personal knowledge of the matters herein referred to:
1. I, am commonly called Lanny Thomas. I am a Man with Intrinsic Rights A REGISTRATION OF LIVE BIRTH was completed on or about the 24th day of December 1976 recording this event. This record is on file with the Province of Alberta. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. He also possesses juridical personality. Every human being possesses juridical personality and has the full enjoyment of civil rights. see Exhibit “A" Vital Statistics Act RSA see Exhibit “B" The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
2. On or about the 4th day of January 1977 A Birth Certificate was issued in the Province of Alberta with a name listed as: HODDGAN, LANNY THOMAS. The Birth Certificate is a abstract of REGISTRATION OF LIVE BIRTH. A person is a citizen if the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977 A citizen, whether or not born in Canada, is entitled to all rights, powers and privileges and is subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a person who is a citizen is entitled or subject and has a like status to that of such person. Every person has a name which is assigned to it when it is constituted, and under which it exercises its rights and performs its obligations. It shall be assigned a name which conforms to law and which includes, where required by law, an expression that clearly indicates the juridical form assumed by the legal person. see Exhibit “C" Civil Code of Quebec see Exhibit "D” Citizenship Act R.S.C
3. A Birth Certificate is a class of person or one who has status called citizen. A citizen may have certain rights and freedoms as defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or CCRF is also known as the Constitution Act. A refugee stateless person foreign national may acquire permanent resident status permanent residents may acquire citizenship. see Exhibit "E" Immigration and Refugee Protection Act see Exhibit "F" Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
4. A Birth Certificate may be a valuable security, a financial banking instrument as defined in the bank act and Criminal Code of Canada Interpretation .see Exhibit "G" bank act see Exhibit "H" Criminal Code of Canada Interpretation see Exhibit "I" Financial Administration Act RSC
5. A person who has status of citizen is obligated under law to understand and to have perception of the laws acts statutes and regulations in the conscience. You are obligated to know what the Laws state and comply with what the Law states. This removes the freedom of conscience by placing an obligation to know what these Laws state and having to comply and abide these laws. I possess the right to decide what goes on in my mind. I possess the right to determine what it is I will allow my conscience to dwell upon. The conscience is a process. The conscience is not a thing. no person shall be deemed to have a seditious intention by reason only that he intends, in good faith, to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters that produce or tend to produce feelings of hostility and ill-will between different classes of persons in Canada.
6. WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government; AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency. The Governor in Council may make regulations the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered; establishing priorities among persons applying for compensation on the basis of classes of persons or classes of loss, injury or damage or otherwise; see Exhibit "J" Emergencies Act R.S.C., 1985.
8. The States Parties to the present Covenant,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights. see Exhibit "K" international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
9. Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, see Exhibit "L" Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN8Wa6FhGGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZwQ-bNFGoY