Posted a comment directly to Doug's blog but apparently he doesn't approve of it or think it adds to the discussion. I thought that I was actually supporting some of his argument. Here it is:
Hey Doug,
“Corporations” in the simplest sense are just groups of people acting together (usually towards shared goals). This is not bad or evil in and of itself. “Corporatism” as I would define it is the partnership/collusion between some of these groups and the state.
I do not believe we can or should stop cooperation between people, and placing limits on which actions cooperating groups are allowed to take is just as wrong as placing those restrictions on the people themselves.
There are many, many things wrong with the way we treat corporations here today, but this usually has to do with the privilege granted to many to be free from law and regulation that individuals and other groups of individuals who are not in partnership with the state are bound by.
In the simplest sense are just groups of people acting together (usually towards shared goals).
Shouldn't then these individuals contribute out of their earning from these corporations rather than the Corporations themselves?
The Supreme Court rulings always make for very entertaining reading, on another case MARCUS A. WELLONS v. HILTON HALL, WARDEN (death row case they ruled for the defendant) due to:
Only after the trial did defense counsel learn that there had been unreported exparte contacts between the jury and the judge, that jurors and a bailiff had planned a reunion, and that "either during or immediately following the penalty phase, some jury members gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts," 554 F. 3d 923, 930 (CA11 2009).
Maybe, but are we going to do away with PACs, which are essentially corporations, also? If people want their influence to be heard and heeded they will just find some other place to put that pressure. My point is that this in and of itself is not what actually causes corruption and abuse, there is also the ability of the state to grant privilege and reward arbitrarily in response to pressure.
I agree that this in itself not the cause of corruption, but there is also one other difference. Suppose that a Public Company put to shareholders a motion to support a Presidential candidate's fund and 51% vote for it would you consider it right then for the Corporation to go ahead and donate the money?
Shares in a corporation are a contract(read: agreement) that you have with that corporation and the other shareholders. If you think that donating to a campaign or cause is always wrong, you can seek out companies that do not do that, and only agree to invest in those types of companies. If you think that there should be a rule that any political donations must be approved by a shareholder vote then you can seek out corporations that have that in their shareholder agreement (not that I think that there are currently any in existence).
There are many corporations out there that have a specific 'agenda' that they support with their profits. Some of them are totally ridiculous (see the Trijicon story: http://defensetech.org/2010/01/21/update-on-bible-scopes-us-...), and some of them are worthwhile(Aid to Haiti), but this is my subjective judgement of those causes, and anyone else might view them differently.
The implications are much wider how about someone invested via mutual funds or a retirement annuity, this choice might not be possible. It is fine for a Corporation to have a specific agenda even the Vatican owns businesses but supporting Politicians via this avenue just doesn't sound right.
Mutual funds are no different. You contract/agree with a fund that represents your investment criteria and they invest on your behalf and charge you a fee. There are already 'values' driven mutual funds in existence today. ( ex: 'green' mutual funds)
I agree that politics is different, but the different part is not that people are influencing its outcome. The different part is that the people that rise to the top control the institutions of the state.
9 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 36.0 ms ] threadHey Doug, “Corporations” in the simplest sense are just groups of people acting together (usually towards shared goals). This is not bad or evil in and of itself. “Corporatism” as I would define it is the partnership/collusion between some of these groups and the state.
I do not believe we can or should stop cooperation between people, and placing limits on which actions cooperating groups are allowed to take is just as wrong as placing those restrictions on the people themselves.
There are many, many things wrong with the way we treat corporations here today, but this usually has to do with the privilege granted to many to be free from law and regulation that individuals and other groups of individuals who are not in partnership with the state are bound by.
*Edited to fix a typo.
Shouldn't then these individuals contribute out of their earning from these corporations rather than the Corporations themselves?
The Supreme Court rulings always make for very entertaining reading, on another case MARCUS A. WELLONS v. HILTON HALL, WARDEN (death row case they ruled for the defendant) due to:
Only after the trial did defense counsel learn that there had been unreported exparte contacts between the jury and the judge, that jurors and a bailiff had planned a reunion, and that "either during or immediately following the penalty phase, some jury members gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts," 554 F. 3d 923, 930 (CA11 2009).
The supreme court site was down for me but here is the cached page http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:W5J1m2YCS_AJ:www.suprem...
There are many corporations out there that have a specific 'agenda' that they support with their profits. Some of them are totally ridiculous (see the Trijicon story: http://defensetech.org/2010/01/21/update-on-bible-scopes-us-...), and some of them are worthwhile(Aid to Haiti), but this is my subjective judgement of those causes, and anyone else might view them differently.
I agree that politics is different, but the different part is not that people are influencing its outcome. The different part is that the people that rise to the top control the institutions of the state.