> > I think this line of complaint is more petit bourgeois than
> > proletarian. It seems founded on an often undisclosed nostalgia for
> > the 19th century world of proprietorships or small partnerships. And
> > what a wonderful time that was!
> >
> > Doug
>Yes, and it also promotes the old Fabian notion that you can somehow finagle
>the existing system and turn it into socialism, without ever talking
>truthfully about power and choice and what you're proposing to do as an
>alternative. If this rechartering idea ever really got off the ground --
>and it won't, since it's mainly a way for trust-fund rebels to avoid using
>the five-letter word and leaving their think tanks -- it would be sharply
>assaulted by the massively dominant class on whom the trick is supposed to
>be played.
>
>Tighten corporate charters, sure. But that seems feasible only after we're
>pretty well down the road toward a different socio-economic order.
>
>IMHO, the thing to do is to create public-interest/public ownership
>corporations and set about trying to outdo BBs at their own game, in key
>areas like transportation, housing, and strategically selected small
>commodity production and distribution.
>
>Of course, even that requires a huge mass movement. But at least it
>wouldn't be shy about its point and the nature of its enemies.
>
>Michael Dawson
I harbor no ideas that the 19th century was inherently better than today. If eliminating corporate person-hood eliminates some of the leverage corporations currently enjoy, and we have good reason to believe it might, then I am in favor of it. I hardly see it creating a huge vacuum that will need to be filled, just limit the constitutional rights of people to humans and treat corporations differently. Eliminating the free speech of corporations, changing what constitutes due process in corporate cases does not seem to have some dark side that I need to be wary of. Hardly a panacea but certainly something worthwhile. It isn't as if I spend hours a day working towards this end but opposing it seems counterproductive. I certainly have a different end result in mind from Korten or Hartmann but that doesn't mean their ideas cannot help move things along in a positive direction. How do you plan to tighten corporate charters if they have the same constitutional rights as you? This isn't a rhetorical question. How do you plan to do it and why will ruling that corporations are not a person hinder that plan? I am certainly open to the idea that there may be legitimate reasons to oppose such plans but citing that the ideas driving the Hartmanns and Kortens of the world isn't it. I don't care if either one of them harbors delusions that the 19th century was a fucking utopia if their idea furthers anyones work for creating a more humane world.
John Thornton