OK, as some of you may be aware, I have been doing some research into the history of the corporation in the United States. I have also been rethinking my understanding of the corporation and how it fits into a system of Natural Law – as our founders would have understood Natural Law. My reading and thinking have changed my position on corporations, and I’m pretty sure many of my conservative friends are going to disagree with me. In fact, I suspect the majority of them will disagree to the point of thinking I have joined Comrade Karl’s team, but I haven’t. I wholeheartedly support the idea of private property; it’s just that the corporation is not private property.
First of all, we must understand what a corporation actually is. Limbaugh and other conservatives who claim they are defending private property will tell you that a corporation is both a person (which is how they defend corporate spending for things like political campaigns and lobbying) and private property owned by individual citizens (which is how they claim corporations are private property). Unfortunately for those who use these arguments, neither assertion is accurate. A corporation is defined thusly:
1a : a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild
b : the municipal authorities of a town or city
2: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession
3: an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state
In other words, a corporation is an artificial construction. It is given the legal status of personhood so the people who own it can escape legal and financial liability in connection to the corporation, but it is treated as private property so those same people can claim a right to the corporation’s assets and profits. This is a clear perversion of Natural Law. In fact, as I have just demonstrated, the corporate structure is designed specifically to navigate around Natural Law.
But then there is the matter of how a corporation comes into being in the first place. A corporation is created by the governing body of a society. But, in order for the governing body to authorize the construction and legal recognition of an artificial entity such as a corporation, it has to be done by the government. This is the only way it can carry the force of law, or the force of law can be applied to protect and uphold the artificial entity. At this point, I suggest we take a look at another definition:
1a : exposed to general view : open
b : well-known, prominent
c : perceptible, material
2a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law>
b : of or relating to a government
c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3a : of or relating to people in general : universal
4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social
5: devoted to the general or national welfare : humanitarian
6a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community
b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market —often used with go
7: supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials <public radio> <public television>
The very fact that the people have to support the laws creating a corporation makes connects the corporation to the public realm. That the corporation can be forcibly dissolved by the government means it is a public entity. Most often, a corporation is dissolved when it no longer serves the interests of or becomes detrimental to the good of society. That puts it in the realm of the public. If a corporation’s stock can be bought and sold by anyone, that clearly makes it a public entity. If a corporation receives subsidies or tax breaks from the government, even if it does so as part of a general industry, this places it in the public sphere. But, before we declare the corporation to be definitively proven to be a public entity, there is one more definition we need to examine:
1a : intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class <a private park>
b : belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest <a private house>
c (1) : restricted to the individual or arising independently of others <private opinion> (2) : carried on by the individual independently of the usual institutions <a doctor in private practice>; also : being educated by independent study or a tutor or in a private school <private students>
4: not having shares that can be freely traded on the open market <a private company>
Now, you will notice that the definition first and foremost stresses the individual – as does Natural Law. However, the definition does mention companies. But, as I have already shown, this is a perversion of Natural Law because, in order to even exist, a company must depend on the public (the same criticism applies to the mention of class in the definition, especially since a class has an even more subjective social definition than a company). So we return to the inevitable conclusion that – in reality – a corporation is a perversion of Natural Law and was created specifically for the purpose of getting around Natural Law. Perhaps this is why our founders did not allow corporations, only charter companies, and only then for a limited time and under strict public controls.
So, here is the dilemma for the “conservative.” If you support the free market, you cannot support corporations as corporations are a violation of the free market because they are a violation of Natural Law. At the same time, if you are going to support corporations as both people and private property, then you cannot claim to support the free market because you support a violation of Natural Law and the free market operates in harmony with Natural Law. Finally, this means that the person who supports corporations as we know and use them today actually does deserve and even justify a great deal of Comrade Karl’s criticism. Sadly, Comrade Karl will never see or understand the difference I just delineated. I just hope my conservative friends will see and understand it as it is actually the source of many of our economic woes.
The Rio Norte Line 
Joe,
Again, there is ample information on what principles guided our founders in writing the Constitution, Bill of Rights and other historical writings. The information is out there to read unfortunately not many take time to read it.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
Another example of history repeating itself. How fast we forget what we fought against for liberty.
Amen 😦
Without a Concomitant and Vigerous attack on ALL unions ….. one is simply furthering the Progressive agenda ( even if it’s a passive furthering, or a furthering by ommision of position).
There is Political Philosophy ….. and there is Political Reality …..
Don,
Straw man? From you? You know bloody well I oppose unions — at least, in the way they are allowed to exist today. Natural Law allows for a union — but NOT for the government intervention on the side of the union. If workers are allowed to unionize, the employer MUST be allowed to just fire the lot of them and hire replacements, and the govt. has a DUTY to help the employer do so peacefully, without interference from the fired employees.
Now, again, why will you not answer my questions?
Just curious, but if the government is not allowed to help employees unionize (by protecting their jobs during organization), why does the government have a DUTY to help the employer? You can’t have government help for one and not the other, can you?
FC,
I did not say the govt. has a duty to help the employer, I said govt. has a duty to protect the employer’s property.
If the employer fires striking union members and those union members try to block entrance to his business, that is an illegal obstruction. Doesn’t the govt. have a duty to enforce the law by forcing the people trying to block access to the business to allow people in? What if the fired employees are trying to do actual damage to the business? Does the govt. have a duty to protect the business from vandalism or worse?
The same applies if an employer exposes his employees to harm through criminal negligence or neglect. Wouldn’t you expect the law to protect a worker under those conditions?
All I am saying is that govt. is supposed to be neutral in enforcing the laws, and the laws are supposed to be neutral as to who they favor. But then, I’m just trying to stay within the frame work of Natural Law. I’m not looking to be politically expedient.
I have never been a union man, especially after supervising union employees for several years during my telecommunications career and going through two strikes, so don’t misunderstand what I’m about to say as sympathizing.
1. A striking union employee does not have the right (authority) to block access to the business. Actually, they are not allowed on the employer’s property. That’s trespassing and if a union employee does this, he should be prosecuted.
2. A striking union employee has absolutely no right (authority) to damage or destroy his employer’s property. I’m intimately aware of fact this happens as I repaired many shot and cut cables during union strikes, but it is difficult to prove when it does happen, at least in the telecom business. Yes, these are criminal acts. The government has a legal duty to protect the employer’s property and prosecute offenders.
3. A union contract is a negotiated legal document. Employers must respect the potential for strike, or in the case of all government unions, the union must respect the no-strike clause in their contract. It is a set of hard and fast rules, agreed to by both parties, that must be followed.
4. The employer (any employer, union or non-union) is held to his legal obligation of protecting his employee’s health and safety through tort liabilities. Unions gave the employees an equal financial footing to fight the company’s well-paid attorneys on safety (or lack of) issues such as injuries. From union contracts basically sprung OSHA. What the employers were not willing to do and the unions couldn’t negotiate (and for non-union employers), the government, OSHA, did. Now it’s another government agency that has gotten out of hand.
Anyway, enforcing the laws is not neutral, equitable maybe, but not neutral. A union contract is not “fair” as many a union employee has found out, nor is the employer’s right to terminate always “fair”, but no one has ever said the world is a fair place, or anyone owes you a living, especially if you are a “bad” employee. Sometimes I feel the government has made unions obsolete through increased minimum wages and OSHA safety protections but I also believe that if the majority of workers want to organize, they should not be prevented from doing so by being fired.
FC,
I agree — on all counts. Those who think I am opposed to unions simply haven’t listened to me. What I am opposed to is the government taking sides. There are laws that make it illegal for an employer to fire striking union employees. That is taking sides as it removes the employers rights and his only card in the employer/employee negotiation. If the employer can’t fire you, then it isn’t a negotiation, it’s government sponsored extortion — pure and simple.
So, hopefully, you will see that I am just interested in the rights of BOTH sides being preserved by a government/law that stays as neutral as men can be and which seeks to do no more than protect the rights of all parties as impartially as humanly possible.
Not exactly disagreeing. Just trying to be on the same page. Is it all corporations you’re railing against or just big corporations?
Because there are all sorts of corporations. My church is a corporation, for example. Baptists are congregationalists. The denomination does not own our property nor does the pastor or a single individual in the church. The members hold it as a corporation. I can’t really see another way to do it that wouldn’t result in a person-oriented church — the guy who owns the building basically being in charge because he owns the building and can sell it out from under the congregation. If we all owned just a portion of it, we’d be constantly having to renegotiate and buy out each other’s shares whenever a family moved on, say, if they were in the military. If there’s another way that you can think of to make that work, please do tell me.
Several of the small businesses I know are s-corporations. Mostly its family or sometimes small groups of friends who have formed this corporation. Again, it would be really hard to do it any other way. Business partnerships, in my experience, never work out for someone. Note my earlier post about my father-in-law, who loves partnerships because they allow him to take the money and run, leaving his partner holding the bag. My brother bought a piece of property in a 8-way partnership 30 years ago. He ended up paying 3/4 of the mortgage as only he and his wife remained active in the partnership, but when one of the long-lost partners died, his family asserted their right to an eighth of the value of the property and demanded it be sold to satisfy them. Had they formed a corporation, they would have been able to protect themselves from that.
I’m opposed to corporations being considered “people”. They aren’t and they shouldn’t have that legal status. And, I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that a corporation allows you as a principle to simply walk away from the debts and responsibilities. Cchelo’s post shows that there is a right way to do it. Unfortunately, what we have been doing for the last 100 years is definitely propping up a form of commercial tyranny.
So, what is the alternative?
Aurora,
ALL corporations, but I understand why you ask. This is the point where many on the Left get lost. Just because the system allows a person to abuse it does not mean they will — as in the case with an S corp or church. Still, the corporate structure is where the problem is because — as I explained — it violates Natural Law.
The “other way” to do it is as it was always done in the past: a charter or a co-op (partnership). We have been so used to doing things the way they are done now that we’ve forgotten how the free market really works. All we need to do to correct that is look to the founders, then modify things as needed but STAY WITHIN NATURAL LAW! 🙂
You’ve given me something to research.
Aurora,
The concept of the Limited Liability Corporation is part of the Success of Free Market Capitalism.
The ability to take economic risk without the intervention of the State and its dictatorial laws enabled economic freedom. The “Law” was used ( and would be again VERY QUICKLY) to contain economic freedom … and dictate behaviour, much the way the Collectivist Progressives envision.
It’s important to see beyond personal effronteries and systemic failiours in order to see that the Germ of an idea has been basterdized. Research the LLC….its’ real hisrory and intent yourself , not the political hyperbole popular today.
Thank you. I will.
I’m on the same page as aurora. I’m interested in a little bit of clarity on the position as well. As for me, maybe I need a little more philosophical and economic substance to add to my view, but the only issue I have is corporations in bed with Washington. I believe that there should be absolutely no reason for corporations to be influencing the Government in any way, shape, or form. No special interest, no lobby, a large cap on donations of any political kind etc, etc, etc. I believe there should be a power check on corporations, especially large ones. Now admittedly, I realize that is a pretty ambiguous view, and maybe somewhat irrelevant at hand. The bottom line, I’m interested in hearing some clarity, for the sake of my understanding.
libercrite,
It might help me explain and clarify my point if you had specific questions??? 🙂
Yes … I’m with you Liber via Corps influencing Government policy.
Your view is NOT ambiguous….but reflective of Political and economic reality.
Political reality? Is that a good reason why we shouldn’t try to shoot for the ideal?
OK, I got it: you guys ARE Teddy Roosevelt Republicans after all. How sad 😦
I don’t know how corporations can possibly violate ‘natural law.’ What is wrong about me and my millionaire buddies pooling our assets to make more money? Would making the shares from the public market somehow satisfy the ‘natural law’ dilema? When I buy a share of GE, GE works for me not for the public who also owns shares of GE’s competitors. GE also works for the private benefit of shareholders, its jobs is to make profits for shareholders. Not build roads, provide clean water and create jobs in america.
*Would KEEPING shares AWAY from the public market?
I’m sorry, I fail to see how the way businesses are organized has anything to do with fhe subversion of natural law. If a corporate entity acts in the same way an individual would in a privatley owned business, then how does that subvert anything?
Corporate ownership shields the individuals from actions of the corporation but the corporation is not shielded from them, the corporation also does not have all the rights of an individual, only some of them.
I don’t really see the problem here.I see this argument as the anthesis of the freedom of association guaranteed in the consitituion. Where I do agree is when we see cronyism and collusion between corporation and government.
I just don’t think that the concept of corporations as an anthesis to liberty is worth the time it is accorded. It seems to me to be a distraction.
“I’m sorry, I fail to see how the way businesses are organized has anything to do with fhe subversion of natural law. If a corporate entity acts in the same way an individual would in a privatley owned business, then how does that subvert anything?”
Please get your company on the phone for me.
Please tell me how I can try a company when it violates a law.
Better yet, tell me how a company — something that really only exists in our imagination — can even violate a law?
Do you not see? If we allow something as imaginary as a company to be treated as a person when it suits our purpose and then as property when that suits our purpose, then how do we say slavery is against Natural Law?
For that matter, how can we tell the Marxists like Comrade Karl that their “workers class” is not real?
Utah, we have butted heads over this before, but you still do not see that you answered your own question:
“Corporate ownership shields the individuals from actions of the corporation but the corporation is not shielded from them,”
Natural Law applies to real persons. When you “shield” a real person from the consequences of their actions, you have violated the very order of Natural Law.
“I just don’t think that the concept of corporations as an anthesis to liberty is worth the time it is accorded. It seems to me to be a distraction.”
So GE, Micro Soft, Soros and TIDES — all of which work together –represent the support of liberty as our founders would understand the term?
“….I just don’t think that the concept of corporations as an anthesis to liberty is worth the time it is accorded. It seems to me to be a distraction….”
I agree with you Utah !!
Don,
then neither you nor Utah should ever argue for the founding principles or ideals again. That wouldn’t be worth the time you would afford it. Instead, you should just start dealing with what is and not what should be. But understand, that will put you both in the Republican camp of the Progressive movement.
😦
Joe you did a good job in defining everything but “Natural Law”. Also what I did not see was Capitalism. The Free Market System is what built this country over the last two hundred years not the government. If Corporations are destroyed then so goes the Free Market System. What is left then? My answer is the Slavocrats. Exactly what Obama is striving for!!!
Ken,
I have defined Natural Law in the past on the RNL, but I also noted that I was using it in the sense that our founders would understand it. For the sake of brevity, I had to “assume” the reader knows that means John Locke.
Second, Corporations — as we know them today — were ILLEGAL in this country until after the Civil War. They actually came about at about the same time as the start of Progressive movement, though I am not saying there was a direct connection between the two.
Finally, I reject the notion that we MUST have the corporate structure as we know it today. IN most communities, if you made all corporations “go away,” individual businesses (what we once called sole proprietors), partnerships and co-ops could and would take their place. What’s more, what was once done by a single large corporation would be divided up among many people, thus strengthening the communities economy.
In reality, corporations centralize control of the market every bit the same way the federal government is centralizing government. At the same time, they shield the individuals running these corporations from any responsibility for their actions, just as the politicians have written the laws to shield them from theirs.
Tell me how and where I am wrong.
Then you fall right in with the UN Agenda 21 Doctrine of “Sustainability”
Ken,
NOPE! Not at all, and I will vigorously oppose your Leftist-like attempt to use ad hominem to undermine me.
If you disagree with me, then answer my challenge.
Tell me how I can get a corporation on the phone.
Tell me how a thing that does not really exist can break a law.
Tell me, when we say that imaginary concept has broken a law, how do I charge it with that crime?
How can it defend itself?
Or, if it claims I have done something wrong, how can I face my accuser when it does not exist?
Tell me how I can put a corporation in jail.
Show me a single corporation in the pure state of nature.
Tell me how any of this is in agreement with Natural Law.
And tell me how our nation managed to survive for the first 1/3 of its life without corporations, at least, not as we know them today.
Joe, doing away with corporations will put the whole economy in jeopardy, including the 501 C’s. Perhaps you should look at a new tax code.
Ken,
Lincoln tried to use that same line of reasoning in regard to the institution of slavery for the majority of his Presidency. The abolitionists won out and the economy recovered.
But let me pose your reasoning to you in a different way.
Why oppose the current tax code? Do you realize how much upheaval you will cause if you reform it?
Why try to end social security, medicaid, medicare or welfare? Do you know how much upheaval you will cause if you do that?
Why try to stop deficit spending? Do you know what you would do if you try to stop deficit spending?
Ken, when will you stop trying to put this back on me and start answering my questions? 🙂
Komrade Karl, to the rescue
Tell me how I can get a corporation on the phone.
Customer service, or talk to the legal department
Tell me how a thing that does not really exist can break a law.
Employees following orders, such as dumping waste into rivers, or bribing war lords
Tell me, when we say that imaginary concept has broken a law, how do I charge it with that crime?
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyerhaeuser_Co._v._Ross-Simmons_Hardwood_Lumber_Co.
How can it defend itself?
lawyers representing the corporation
Or, if it claims I have done something wrong, how can I face my accuser when it does not exist?
Lawyers
Tell me how I can put a corporation in jail.
Fines, executives sent to jail for criminal wrongdoing
Show me a single corporation in the pure state of nature.
You don’t define nature.
Tell me how any of this is in agreement with Natural Law.
Show me how it is not in agreement with ‘natural law?’ I have found no contradictions with natural law,
Karl,
Customer service is NOT the corporation, it is an employee — FAIL!
If an employee breaks the law, the EMPLOYEE broke the law — NOT the corporation — FAIL!
If the corporation was actually charged, then why didn’t IT go to jail? — FAIL!
If the lawyers were actually representing the corporation, then why wasn’t the CORPORATION sitting in the defendants’ seat instead of CEO’s? — FAIL!
Again, the lawyers are NOT the corporation, so I am NOT facing the corporation when it accuses me — FAIL!
Fines are NOT sending the corporation to jail, and sending a CEO to jail is sending the CEO to jail — NOT the corporation. –FAIL!
I DID define nature: you’re just ignorant, otherwise you’d know Locke. — FAIL!
How is it NOT in agreement with natural law? The corporation DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY! That means it is in violation of natural law to treat it as though it is real — sort of the same problem you have with your mythical workers class.
Karl, you went 0 for how many? IDIOT!
Tell me how I can get a corporation on the phone. >>>>> You can’t
Tell me how a thing that does not really exist can break a law.>>>>>> It can’t
Tell me, when we say that imaginary concept has broken a law, how do I charge it with that crime?>>>>>>You can’t
How can it defend itself?>>>>>>It doesn’t have to since it doesn’t exist.
Or, if it claims I have done something wrong, how can I face my accuser when it does not exist?>>>>>You can’t.
Tell me how I can put a corporation in jail.>>>>>>>>You can’t.
Show me a single corporation in the pure state of nature.>>>>>> There aren’t any.
WM,
You know me well enough to know I am being sincere when I ask:
“So what am I missing? What don’t I understand about Don and Utah’s position?”
Seriously. If there is an answer, I really want to know what it is. I promise, I will do my best to understand.
I can’t tell you because I don’t know.
I know you don’t care for some of Adam Smith’s positions, but I’m with him on this one against corporations. You may favor Chomsky’s criticisms more, but I agree with both of them but on this topic.
Artificial entities without rights of people, maybe. But when they can act as a person of incredible wealth and power with, in some cases, more rights than a person then no. As you stated, “how can GM go to prison”?
Plus are those guys really gonna look after that company’s (shareholders) money as if it’s their own? Is he really going to pay for that lunch himself or is he gonna “expense” it?
WM,
It goes farther than that. Theoretically, a corporation is immortal. So, in the case of Turners impending death when his trust will kick in, it could permanently seal off the use of a large part of the Mid-Western Mountain States from use by future living persons (I think mostly Montana or is it Wyoming?). This is precisely what Jefferson meant by the dead ruling the earth — and why he opposed corporations.
As for Adam Smith, I will admit to the need to revisit his work again — especially his work upon which the Wealth of Nations is founded, Moral Sentiments. And I fear I’ve never really agreed with Chomsky — what little of him I’ve read. Honestly, my problem with corporations comes from little more than holding their current structure up against the application of Natural Law as Locke described it. When you do that, corporations are clearly a violation of the ideals and principles our founders used to build this nation. I’ve even quoted Jefferson and Franklin explaining that society has just claim to legislate over the forms of wealth generated from operating a charter company (corporation), for, without the assistance of society, such wealth is not possible.
I agree. I think this is a Path that lends itself TO the UN’s Agenda 21.
And I don’t think Ken’s comment deserves an accusation of it be a “leftist-like” attempt.
Don,
It is. It is ad hominem: an attempt to attach me to an agenda that has very negative connotations within the community that is awake. It is also straw man as I have NOT asserted any such thing. In fact, I have been very clear to point to the way things used to be done before corporations became people. Tell me how THAT leads to Agenda 21.
Will ANY of you who are knee-jerk disagreeing with me PLEASE answer my challenges?
Or should I start accusing you guys of actually agreeing with big govt. as long as it is run your way and then saying that wouldn’t be ad hominem and straw man?
Yes …. Ken is correct.
Then why don’t one of the two of you answer my challenges for me — so I can understand where and why I am wrong? 🙂
TO THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME:
If I am as wrong as you are all claiming, then set me straight. Answer my challenges and explain how and why I am wrong. Just be sure to stay within the understanding of Natural Law that our founders held (i.e. John Locke).
While I am disagreeing with the majority of conservatives, I am not trying to be argumentative in the sense we would all consider the Left to be argumentative when they are challenged. I’m just wanting you to explain to me where, how and why I am wrong.
NOTE: this is the heart of why I rejected and still reject Edmund Burke. He would stand with the majority of you who are disagreeing with me — but then, he also argued that a Corporation could buy the right to own and dispose of 1/3 of the world’s population as it saw fit. All it had to do was pay whatever price the government set to get the government to pass a law saying it was OK. For me, those who defend corporations as they exist today are defending a watered down version of Burke’s argument, and I simply do not see how that can be within the confines of Natural Law. I honestly and sincerely welcome the comment that can show me where, how and why I am wrong.
Joe,
You have an Agenda….. You have been on this topic since I first came to this site, even though you say you have been “rethinking your understanding of the corporation”.
It pops up at regular intervals ( which is your absolute right to do) ….but when you make a statement…”then neither you nor Utah should ever argue for the founding principles or ideals again….” It is becoming a “crusade”. One where only the correctly initiated or those correctly interpreting “the holy Books” ( founders writings) should be allowed entry into the dialogue.
Don,
I came to this “crusade” you mention by looking into history and by trying to apply our modern system to Natural Law. I happen to believe Locke was as close to it as we can come on earth. Which means I am correct in my objections to the corporate structure. It DOES violate Natural Law. In all honesty, that’s why no one has answered my questions — because they can’t do so without agreeing with my objections.
Now, to think I am claiming to be the sole arbiter of what Natural Law is and isn’t is patently unfair of you. I stipulated I am using Locke’s work, so, if I am in error, use Locke’s work to show me where, how and why. I’ve clearly made my case for why I believe a corporation violates Natural Law, and my argument is firmly rooted in the body of Locke’s work. And, since this nation is rooted in the Declaration, and the ideals and principles of the Declaration are rooted in Locke’s work, how is my attempt to put myself in line with their ideology a “crusade?” I cite the founders in support of my positions — correctly and in context. So how am I claiming authority over their words when I am doing my best to stay within their intent and not bend them to mine?
What bothers me here is that, when I try to get my conservative friends to see the break with reality they are defending, they suddenly become as blind to it as the Left is to theirs: and they defend their artificial world every bit as vigorously as does the Left. To me, this means the Left’s criticism of the Rights/Corporate greed and profit uber alles is every bit as justified as the Right’s attack on the Left for trying to steal private property. In this light, neither side deserves an allegiance because they are both equally wrong: just flip sides of the same coin.
Unfortunately, you and Utah and others seem to assume I am attacking your right to property. When did I do that? When have I ever attacked the individual’s Natural Right to property? What I am attacking is the assertion that a private individual has a Natural Right to claim ownership of what is — by definition — a public and artificial entity. What’s more, I am objecting to the assertion that it is within Natural Law to do so when it is known that this public, artificial entity serves to shield the individual from responsibility for his/her actions. If socialism is “bad” because it removes individual responsibility, then how is the corporation “good?”
But, alas, no one has offered a reasoned debate. All I ever get is the same implication that I am somehow a traitor. Very well, maybe I should consider that possibility. Because, if my questioning makes me a traitor to whatever cause I am supposedly betraying, then I need to either admit I am wrong and get back in line, or divorce myself from that cause and everyone who stands for it.
I am not ( nor do I think Utah is) assuming you’re attacking a right to Property.
For me it is “the right to a Process” and the Laws and protections defined therein.
Don, baby, I’m here…..and I made Sally’s coconut macaroons. Trust me when I say that you will forget silly B. in no time after one of these…..(I had to make sure they were scrumdiddelyumptious……..they passed the test.)
Don,
OK, so what do we do with laws that violate Natural Law? And, if we are willing to pick and chose which laws we will support even though they violate Natural Law, how then do we justify ANY attack on the Left?
You know, silly B., your stranger character had the right idea on corporations. I cannot recall the title of that post (but, hey, I remembered it because I enjoyed it. Hmmm…wonder if I can find it…plays Muzak… Ha! I’m a genius! https://therionorteline.com/2012/04/27/the-interloper-and-the-wall-st-ceo/ I was close. The Interloper not the stranger…
Can you believe there were only about 50 people out for the Good Friday service tonight? They better get their asses out for Easter! (Oomph! I do beg your pardon!) I’m getting the giggles now because I brought Sally’s coconut macaroons to the rehearsal, and Manny hid them! (He knows Lutherans!)
Pingback: Buy A Operation Liberty Shield Buy
Your point on the members of the coporation being help blameless is correct. In fact, I view it as a construct of La Cosa Notstra. I didn’t do it, it was somebody else. I didn’t order that policy of toxic dumping, I just said dispose of it, not how. If corporations are to be considered as “persons”, then the CEO of the corporation and the chairman of th eboard of directors need to be help accountable in the name of the individual corporation. Also, a corporation is actually a socialist construct. We all buy shares and the corp. acts for the collective as a whole.
Ignore this I didn’t proof read it.
Your point on the members of the coporation being held blameless is correct. In fact, I view it as a construct of La Cosa Nostra. I didn’t do it, it was somebody else. I didn’t order that policy of toxic dumping, I just said dispose of it, not how. If corporations are to be considered as “persons”, then the CEO of the corporation and the chairman of the board of directors need to be held accountable in the name of the individual corporation. Also, a corporation is actually a socialist construct. We all buy shares and the corp. acts for the collective as a whole.
Your point on the members of the corporation being held blameless is correct. In fact, I view it as a construct of the Cosa Nostra. I didn’t do it, it was somebody else. I didn’t order that policy of toxic dumping; I just said dispose of it, not how. If corporations are to be considered as “persons”, then the CEO of the corporation and the chairman of the board of directors need to be held accountable in the name of the individual corporation. Also, a corporation is actually a socialist construct. We all buy shares and the corp. acts for the collective as a whole.