> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Liza Featherstone
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:28 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Challenge for leftists of all stripes
>
> Well, certainly. But the question is which of these impossible demands
> contains more political potential -- they are all impossible, in the world
> as it is, but the ideas can build momentum for other reforms -- and I
> think
> the idea that corporations, like individuals, should be forced to take
> responsibility for their actions has more resonance and potential than the
> idea that it's so horrible that corporations have the same rights as
> people.
> I think most Americans like rights and responsibilities and think there
> should be more, not less, of both. Also, I don't, on a purely visceral
> level, care whether corporations have free speech or not, but I want to
> see
> CEOs break rocks when they break laws and I imagine I'm not the only
> person
> who feels this way.
>
> Liza
>
>
> > From: joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net>
> > Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:41:58 -0800
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Challenge for leftists of all stripes
> >
> > Problem is, they are committing these crimes in pursuit of their prime
> > directive which is "maximize profits." This prime directive is
> > equivalent to their "right to life." If they were computers, I guess you
> > could get them to self destruct by pondering the paradox that they must
> > destroy those they formally serve. But they're not computers. They're
> > instruments of class domination, and this they do very well under the
> > aegis of personhood.
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> > Liza Featherstone wrote:
> >
> >> One thing I always wonder about the corporate personhood, is, wouldn't
> it be
> >> better to expand it in a totally literal-minded way. (I know, you would
> have
> >> to abolish limited liability - I don't know how to do that, of course.)
> Say,
> >> if they are going to be considered people and have the rights people
> have,
> >> they should have the responsibilities people have. Thus, say, OK
> >> corporations are people, so, when they commit crimes, the board, CEO
> and all
> >> of upper management have to do jail time. They cause someone's death,
> they
> >> get life sentences. Three strikes in California, we throw away the key.
> Etc.
> >> You could then criminalize environmental and labor law violations, and
> all
> >> sorts of other potentially great stuff. I think most people would
> rather see
> >> corporations gain responsibilities -- and miscreants wear leg irons --
> than
> >> lose rights.
> >>
> >> Liza
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org>
> >>> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> >>> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:00:12 -0500
> >>> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Challenge for leftists of all stripes
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> John Thornton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> All persons are guaranteed "free speech". Corporations can donate
> >>>> money to political parties or individuals as a guaranteed form of
> >>>> free speech.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> -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!
> >>>
> >>> No, the complaints about legal personhood for corporations have to do
> with
> >>> the history of courts in the US using that "personhood" to endow them
> with
> >>> a range of constitutional rights that legislatures could not regulate.
> For
> >>> decades, those rights included a range of economic contracting rights
> that
> >>> stunted legislative regulation.
> >>>
> >>> More recently, "free speech" and other "associational" rights have
> been
> >>> raised to try to block a range of regulations. Let me give one
> example.
> >>> At one point, California required Pacific Gas & Electric to include a
> flyer
> >>> by a consumer group, TURN, advertising to ratepayers their ability to
> join
> >>> TURN and support a consumer advocate against higher electric rates.
> The
> >>> US Supreme Court struck down this law as violating the free speech
> rights
> >>> of PG&E against having to be associated with the views of TURN.
> >>>
> >>> Believe me, in the legal work I do on economic regulation, corporate
> >>> opponents cite their constiutional rights against violations of equal
> >>> protection, free speech, due process and a range of other rights to
> combat
> >>> economic regulation. Corporate personhood is indeed one of the
> deadlier
> >>> weapons against democracy in the United States. We had a period after
> the
> >>> New Deal when this was largely abandoned, but it is creeping up on us
> >>> day-to-day and is likely to accellerate in the coming years as more
> >>> reactionary jurists extend their control of the courts.
> >>>
> >>> Nathan Newman
> >>>
> >>> ___________________________________
> >>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk