The Absurdity of Corporate Rights

The notion that a corporation has or should have rights -- either natural rights or constitutional rights -- the same as a natural person, is patently absurd, even when the corporation is regarded as an artificial person for purposes of legal convenience.

Corporations exist only as government franchises. They have no independent existence apart from the state. Corporations are privileged entities. The officers and directors of a corporation enjoy certain legal immunities that ordinary citizens do not. This is privilege. Corporate officers cannot be held legally liable for their honest mistakes nor can they be made to fund losses sustained by the corporation or its shareholders due to management error. There are other immunities enjoyed by those who operate the corporation. All this amounts to privilege not enjoyed by the citizenry at large.

The central theme of the American Constitution is that all power derives ultimately from the people. The people have natural rights as well as constitutional rights. The people are the source of government power via the Constitution which is a legal contract among the states as representatives of the people, that contract having been ratified by the state legislatures elected by those people.

Now, if the people are the source of government power and the people have in fact created the government, and the government issues a corporate franchise or license, then it follows that unless the people have, via the Constitution, delegated to the government the power to confer rights on corporations (which power they have in fact not delegated), then corporations have no rights at all and should not, except for possible limited statutory rights such as the right to due process of law.

As an artifical entity, it is impossible for the corporation to have natural rights or constitutional rights, and further, it is not possible that a government that was created by a higher power -- the people -- can confer on an artificial entity lesser than itself rights equal to the rights naturally enjoyed by the power that created the government. That would be like humans creating an android endowed with godly powers. The creators of the android simply do not have the power to do that, just as the goverment does not have the power to confer natural or constitutional rights on a corporation.

Thus corporations have no inherent right to free speech, for example, no right not to self incriminate, no freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc, unless granted by statute through legislation enacted by the elected representatives of the people. Indeed, as privileged artificial entities, corporations are rightly subject to full regulation and are just as rightly the object of taxation. It is right and just and legally appropriate that corporations be fuly regulated and taxed. Not taxed out of existence -- obviously that wouldn't be good for anyone. But taxed, yes, on their privileged activity, which is the source of their income, which can be used as a measure of the activity.

There is no reason the government could not make a law criminalizing lying on the part of corporations. It could be -- and possibly should be -- a crime for a corporation to say they don't use sweatshop or child labor if actually they do. Not just bad PR, but a crime wherein the officers of the corporation are liable. Similarly, government could proscribe any and all participation in politics by corporations. Even corporate lobbying could be legally prohibited. The justification used now by corporations for lobbying is that the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances. That's a constitutional right to be enjoyed by natural persons, not any kind of a right to be enjoyed by an artifical corporate person.

Democracy can be restored in the United States by denying natural rights to the artificial entities known as corporations. It's about time we did just that. The sooner we fix that little mistake, the sooner we restore government of, by, and for the people.

The Myth of Government Spending

There's this myth in conservative circles that government spending is somehow a bad thing. Nothing could be more wrongheaded. Money spent becomes part of the economy. It's economic activity! Every dollar spent is income to someone, and they will spend it as well, on wages, raw materials, whatever, it gets spent and re-spent, thus enlarging the economy. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it's very beneficial. The Great Depression was ended by government spending.

Because money flows uphill, even if a source of funds for government spending is taxes on the wealthy class, in the form of repealed tax cuts, for example, they end up with it right back in their pockets anyway. May as well tax them on some of their income and send it around again, to the benefit of everyone.

The measure of economic health is not how much money is held, but how much money is spent -- circulated. It's the circulation of the money that equates to prosperity, not the holding of it. If an economy stagnates, it is the responsibility of government to spend enough to rev things up again.

All the conservative complaints about entitlements and socialized medicine and all their carping about what an unfair burden taxes are for industry, this is all a smokescreen born of stupidity and ignorance born of greed. Government spending is like a giant goose laying golden eggs for everyone. Why kill that?

Consider the opposite extreme. What if economic conservatives could have their way and "starve the beast" called government. No spending by government at all. What then? Roads crumble, buildings collapse, water becomes undrinkable, the air becomes unbreathable, airplanes crash into each other, schools close, people become restive, riots ensue. If you think market forces would prevent those kinds of consequences, you're dreaming or on drugs.

Market forces would cause those effects as greed drove every corporation to pillage the marketplace. The wealthy class would provide services, but only for itself, leaving the vast majority to fend (badly) for themselves. Think this isn't so? Look at the Katrina debacle. This is how government responds to social crisis when that government is run by people who don't believe in government. Which victims got their insurance payments and their houses rebuilt in the Gulf Coast region following Katrina and which ones got screwed? You know the answer. The government stepped aside and the wealthy class took care of its own.

Extremes are not healthy on either end of a spectrum. Overtaxing would be counterproductive because it would rob businesses and individuals of incentive and discourage entrepreneurship. There's a happy medium to be found in tax and spend. It's up to responsible government to find that happy medium.

Probably most taxes should come from corporate revenue rather than taxes on wages. A corporate revenue tax would not have to impact corporations adversely because the taxes would simply be passed on in the price of goods. This is fair, as long as wages are not taxed, because the end user has to pay the costs anyway. What do you suppose people would do with the extra money in every paycheck if they weren't taxed on income? They'd spend it! What a bonanza! For rich and working poor and middle class alike!

As economic stimulus, tax cuts should therefore be applied at the bottom of the economic ladder and taper upwards, with the super wealthy getting no tax cuts at all. They'll still get richer because working people will spend the extra money and money flows uphill.

Doesn't this make a lot of sense? Yes, but economic conservatives have to see past their greed. They have to realize that everyone including themselves can become wealthier through government spending and tax cuts for the working class.

This is not socialism, it's capitalism. Sensible capitalism. This is not advocating collective ownership by the people of the means of production, which has been shown not to work. It is healthy capitalism where the legitimate needs of all sectors of the society are taken into consideration and prosperity is boosted for everyone, not just for some. This means that government spending and government regulation of industry and the marketplace are necessary. The wealthy class has to see past its own greed in order to make that a reality.

What politician will step up to the plate and propose these policies?