> My whole point is that a corp is an institutionalized version of Mr
> Moneybags, and both will behave in pretty similar fashion. I don't
> understand what the corp personhood crowd sees as an alternative to
> the corporate form. If it's some sort of semi-socialized hybrid form,
> in which public benefit somehow is supposed to co-exist with profit
> maximization, then we're not talking legal reform, we're talking
> serious political transformation. I don't think the personhood people
> really understand this.
If by "corp personhood crowd" you mean people who focus on corp personhood to the exclusion of everything else, then I'm not one of them. It just seems to me like one good idea among many. In particular, if a corporation is deprived of the equal protection and due process--which is what's really meant, AFAIK, when (real) people rail against corp personhood--then a corporation CAN'T behave like Mr. Moneybags because it simply doesn't have all the rights Mr. Moneybags has.
I think something like this would *require* serious political transformation, because corps will fight it tooth and nail.
You ask what the alternative to the corporate form would be if the corporation were deprived of personhood. I can only hope that profit making--certainly not maximization, and perhaps even just breaking even--will co-exist with public benefit. This would open the door to even more big political changes.
Curtiss