What the Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

[Prefontaine]

Interesting article. We've lost the war i think though. Any attempt to reign them in is "socialism" or "tax and spend" or "class warfare" or "job killing regulations.". They've got all the power and we have let ourselves become helpless. They own the world.

I may have one vote, but I have a clip full of opinions to express. *wink

 

[Prefontaine]

yet everyone crys for the government to stay away from business. this is what happens when we let banks have complete control. pure capitalism is a terrible thing, you can never eliminate greed therefor some socialistic practices are a must. we knew this at the dawn of the century and the depression was a great lesson. but of course technology brought on easier ways to FUCK people and make money. if the founding fathers were alive today they actually wouldnt have a fucking clue as to whats going on. they'd have as a much knowledge as a 3rd grader. if your government isnt involved in business....... good fucking luck. men like two things. fucking and getting rich. i sure as hell know i do lol.

banks did not create corporations or give them personhood, that is the sin of the governing body

 

[deprave]

Another thing to note is the founding fathers wanted a republic, they even predicted this 'spreading democracy' bullshit and thought it would be a major threat. It seems every doomsday scenario involving our republic that they predicated came true, we really aren't the america they dreamed of at all, only the downfall that they predicted.

 

[deprave]

Pure Capitalism is really bad -
Pure Socialism is really bad -

The key is to ride the center and reach a compromise with the two. We absolutely need both and can not survive with just one. Lean too far one way and we pay dearly. We have without a doubt leaned to far towards pure Capitalism and we are paying dearly. Unfortunately there is a small percentage of people (about the richest 1%) who have managed to convince about 50% of the people that we need to become even more capitalistic in order to save us, which is fairly counterintuitive.

You make some good observations but your not looking at the big picture, and its not this black and white. I'm also not sure where you draw this 50% and 1% number from, I assume this is some kind of slam on republicans because this makes the most sense in the context of your post. You say pure captilism is really bad and so is socialism, well thats not necessarily true, philosophically it is completely false, however, they are both logical statements so they are indeed a valid opinion and a good observation, You must understand that Capitalism and Socialism is not the demon, the demon is 'the man', the authoritarian, the centrist, the demon is that compromise that you speak of....this is crony capitalism, this is corporatism, this is not in the best interest of the people in a society. American exceptional-ism is bad, the Micheal Moore movies you hold so dear to your heart are bad. In order to fullfull the sterotype you probably have for me now I will leave you with a redneck quote which is relative:

In the words of kennys dad "IF YEW DONT LIKE AMERICA U KAN GEYT OUT!"

 

[bedspirit]

a little research into the subject probably would have saved you from making a point completely opposite from the one you were trying to make. those corporations decried by our founders were inextricably linked to the state. they existed and were granted power solely by decree of the crown under which they did business. they were both protected by and a part of the violent force that is at the disposal of government. they were the last gasp of the feudalism that reigned throughout europe for centuries.

while i'll agree that some social restraints must be put on corporate entities, this is not socialism. the aim of socialism is the economic control of the private sector by government, essentially eliminating it, and these are not the sort of restraints that are required to produce a free society. the protection of the basic rights of the citizenry, of their life and liberty, and of the environment which we all share are the purview of government. the development of industry and the distribution of the wealth it creates are the responsibility of the people and their markets. the notion that the state should regain the sort of control over corporate bodies that is proposed by modern liberalism harkens back to those more primitive notions of the corporation. it once again places centralized control of both the economic and violent powers available to society into the hands of a governing elite.

I can never figure out what you're saying. You speak in such broad, vague terms that lack a frame of reference. You speak of corporations as if they were the only form of business.

When you say

those corporations decried by our founders were inextricably linked to the state.

are you implying that there were corporations not inextricably linked to the state? What do you mean by that? A corporation is a legal arrangement and would always be linked to the state.

the only other coherent thing you said was

it once again places centralized control of both the economic and violent powers available to society into the hands of a governing elite.

You know what a corporation is, right? To me it sounds like you confuse it with a regular business. There are major differences. Regulating a corporation would not necessarily place control of the entire economy in the hands of the governing.

 

[Prefontaine]

You know what a corporation is, right? To me it sounds like you confuse it with a regular business. There are major differences. Regulating a corporation would not necessarily place control of the entire economy in the hands of the governing.

I think what that line meant was that by allowing corporations to have the protections they do they allow an economic elite to control major portions of our economy by having controlling interests in multiple businesses thereby creating a monopoly that is not technically a monopoly?

i dont know, but that is argument against corporate personhood, that there is no real repercusions that can be taken against a corporation, being that a corporation can only be fined or refused licensure which is more an idea than to imprison or put to death a living person.

*shrug

 

[NoDrama]

A person is a corporation, a corporation is a person. Human beings are NOT persons, they HAVE a person.

A person is a legal fiction used to promulgate laws and customs, a person is the shell you walk around with that the law is applied to. You aren't a person , you HAVE a person. Bills you receive are not sent to you the human being, but to your person. Your person has the obligation to pay those bills, and if you do not pay them, your person will be brought into court. Whether or not you agree to having your person brought before a court is entirely up to you.

Some things are illegal and some things are unlawful, sometimes things are both or only one. Murder is unlawful and illegal, driving without a driver license is NOT unlawful, but it is illegal.

Wrap your brain around that.

 

[undertheice]

You speak of corporations as if they were the only form of business.

no, they are merely a protection that separates the assets of investors from the liabilities of the enterprise. seeking poke holes in the barrier of those protections increases the risk to investors and, in many cases, makes the enterprise itself not worth continuing. how many people do you suppose would be willing to invest in pharmaceutical innovations if they were to be held completely liable for any mischance? any attempt to dismantle or restrict those protections has a deleterious effect on the innovations that drive industry. that's all fine and dandy if the sorts of businesses you want to stimulate are mom and pop grocery stores and corner delis, but these aren't the sorts of enterprises that enlarge the workforce and drive an economy.

A corporation is a legal arrangement and would always be linked to the state.

it is government that defines a corporation, but its interests are not necessarily linked. a quick look back tells us that this wasn't true of eighteenth century corporations. they were instruments of the agenda of the flag under which they did business. this wasn't a matter of choice, but a matter of survival. their charters were under the strict control of their various crowns and could easily and unilaterally be revoked should they go against their governments' wishes. they became the agents of empire, plying their trade and reinforcing colonial rule. their closest modern american equivalents might be freddie, fanny and the fed, quasi-governmental agencies whose efficacy and desirability has been so in question lately.

 

[londonfog]

a person can serve in the military...a person can vote for elected official...a person can does not live for 150 years plus...a corporation cannot serve in the military...a corporation cannot vote for an elected official...a corporation can live for 150 years plus... a

 

[NoDrama]

a person can serve in the military...a person can vote for elected official...a person can does not live for 150 years plus...a corporation cannot serve in the military...a corporation cannot vote for an elected official...a corporation can live for 150 years plus... a

Pretty much correct if you replace "person" with people.

The problem with Corporations is that there is no body to imprison and no soul to feel immoral.

 

[londonfog]

nope correct as is..people just trying to play the word game to justify the ruling of the Supreme Court...which is wrong

 

[NoDrama]

nope correct as is..people just trying to play the word game to justify the ruling of the Supreme Court...which is wrong

You should see the LEGAL DEFINITIONS of those words, you will be taken aback at the word play inherent in the system.

Person - An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -

 

[NoDrama]

nope correct as is..people just trying to play the word game to justify the ruling of the Supreme Court...which is wrong

Don't color me as supporting the SC ruling that Corps can give as much money as they like, I think its a bad idea that gives far too much influence to the wealthiest of Corporations(Big oil, GE, Big Banks etc etc)

 

[Prefontaine]

Don't color me as supporting the SC ruling that Corps can give as much money as they like, I think its a bad idea that gives far too much influence to the wealthiest of Corporations(Big oil, GE, Big Banks etc etc)

doesnt everyone know that money is now considered a form of free speech and therefore a corporation or any person is allowed to give infinite funds to a PAC to support presidential candidates without that money being included in that candidates campaign fund? hmmmm seems like a form of voting or at least a legal for of influencing the public vote.

 

[Prefontaine]

or doesnt anyone else watch colbert?

 

[NoDrama]

Don't own a TV.

 

[londonfog]

Don't color me as supporting the SC ruling that Corps can give as much money as they like, I think its a bad idea that gives far too much influence to the wealthiest of Corporations(Big oil, GE, Big Banks etc etc)

ok ..my fault

 

[londonfog]

Don't own a TV.

you can watch it online on hulu.com

 

[bedspirit]

no, they are merely a protection that separates the assets of investors from the liabilities of the enterprise. seeking poke holes in the barrier of those protections increases the risk to investors and, in many cases, makes the enterprise itself not worth continuing. how many people do you suppose would be willing to invest in pharmaceutical innovations if they were to be held completely liable for any mischance? any attempt to dismantle or restrict those protections has a deleterious effect on the innovations that drive industry. that's all fine and dandy if the sorts of businesses you want to stimulate are mom and pop grocery stores and corner delis, but these aren't the sorts of enterprises that enlarge the workforce and drive an economy.

I think you summed up everything wrong with a corporation right there. If nobody would want to risk legal liability for what they do, maybe they shouldn't be doing it.

I think your statistics are backward when it comes to innovation and employment. More people in this country work for small businesses than they do for large corporations. 64% of new jobs in the last few years were created by small business. You can certainly argue that corporations have moved more jobs to other countries than small businesses have. It's difficult to quantify innovation statistically, but just the other day, there was a story on NPR that claimed small businesses were responsible for most of the innovation in this country.

it is government that defines a corporation, but its interests are not necessarily linked. a quick look back tells us that this wasn't true of eighteenth century corporations. they were instruments of the agenda of the flag under which they did business. this wasn't a matter of choice, but a matter of survival. their charters were under the strict control of their various crowns and could easily and unilaterally be revoked should they go against their governments' wishes. they became the agents of empire, plying their trade and reinforcing colonial rule. their closest modern american equivalents might be freddie, fanny and the fed, quasi-governmental agencies whose efficacy and desirability has been so in question lately.

I've done a lot of reading on this subject and I've never heard that particular spin. I suspect you pulled it directly from your ass. Here is a passage from "Gangs of America":

Besides pioneering the use of joint-stock capital and limited liabil-
ity, the East India Company is historically significant because it was
quite simply the most powerful corporation that has ever existed. Imag-
ine a private company so unaccountable it conducts its own criminal
trials and runs its own jails, so dominant it possesses an army larger
than any other organized force in the world, and so predatory that for
more than two centuries it squeezes the economy of the richest country
in the world until observers report that some regions have been “bled
white.” The King is dependent on periodic “loans” from the company.
A third of Parliament owns stock in it, and a tax on its tea constitutes
ten percent of the government’s revenues. A 250,000-man army (twice
the size of Britain’s) fights the company’s wars, and the four out of five
soldiers in that army who are “sepoys,” i.e. Indians, are kept in line by
punishments such as “blowing away” strapping an offending soldier
across the mouth of a cannon and firing the weapon.

Does this sound like a company that was fearful of the king? It's more often argued that corporations had a powerful influence over the crown not the other way around as you have imagined it. But even corporations less powerful than the East India Trading Company were not tools of the crown. They complied with taxation and various laws but the crown didn't direct their business affairs. Where in the hell did you come up with corporations being agents of the empire? Which ones and in what ways? Did they single out corporations for this or was it the same with all businesses?

 

[deprave]

Corporations aren't people, people create corporations, corporations need not care about whats best for humanity and society, this is not their concern whatsoever, there in lies the problem, and this is not to say as if capitalism is the demon, truly free market capitalism would be a godsend for the people, but crony capitalism and corporatism is what stands in our way.