> Re: corporations as persons
>
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Max Sawicky wrote:
> > > Offense at the idea of corporations
> > > as persons, with reference to freedom
> > > of speech or due process is puzzling.
> >
> > Why is it puzzling? The complaint I have is that *human* rights are
> > accorded to an artificial legal entity, not the people in it. The
>
> Because 'rights' for corporations are no
> different than recognizing that the rights
> of individual owners of the corps as
> individuals carry over to their roles as
> owners.
This simply isn't true, as one can readily tell from examining the historical record.
Originally, for-profit corporations were strictly limited in the purposes they were chartered for, much more strictly than non-profits are today, but on the same underlying theory that they were SPECIFICALLY chartered entities. In fact, corporate charters were routinely limited in extent -- covering only a certain period of time (though they could be renewed) and certain area of operation. Thus a corporation has no inherent right to exist. This is quite different from citizens, whose existence is most certainly protected.
This was never seen as an infrigment on individual rights, until after the Civil War, when a new corporatist agenda emerged, lead by those great human rights leaders, the railroad lawyers.
> This molehill of an issue seems to be a way
> some people think they can use to attack the
> legal legitimacy of capital. Rather a circuitous
> route. If there were no corps, capital would
> still be owned by persons who would have rights.
You're making the wrong comparison here. Those arguing against the personhood of the corporation include many who AREN'T out to attack the legal legitimacy of capital. They simply want to create a much more fundamental approach to asserting the primacy of democracy over corporate power. One should compare such efforts to the increasingly ineffective results of fighting labor law, environmental law, consumer protection law, etc. fights.
Not only does it shift the ground of debate, it creates a framework in which the legitimacy of capital can be questioned, albeit not in the same way that Marxism does. Still, it creates a framework in which an interesting dialog is possible.
Imagine for a moment that rewriting corporate charter law was the burning issue of the day, instead of, say, abortion and homosexual rights. We'd be carrying on INTERNAL arguments with militia members for cryring out loud!
And since they're PRECISELY the class of people all good Marxists OUGHT to be organizing with, doesn't this indicate there's something here worth thinking about more carefully?
For me, the bottom line is this: it's a powerful way to frame the basic issues of our time as democracy vs. plutocracy. And that's EXACTLY what I think the basic issues of our time are. Furhtermore, I think that a LOT of people would be willing to agree with me--maybe even a flat-out majority. These people NEED a framework for raising issues that is not either totally foreign to them, or utter bewildering, or both. Get them talking about democracy vs. plutocracy, and then there's the possibility of raising further discussions.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"