Posted on 10/11/2004 1:14:10 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Monday, October 11, 2004
By Vox Day
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
One of the most widely believed myths in America today is the belief that corporations are an inherent part of capitalism. Concomitant with this is the idea that big corporations and big government have an intrinsically hostile relationship and that the stock market is a free market.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Capitalism was already well entrenched and the Industrial Revolution was complete when the U.S. Supreme Court radically altered the concept of the corporate charter in 1886 by ruling that the Southern Pacific Railroad that was a "natural person" under the U.S. Constitution. Prior to this time, corporations were strictly controlled by state law, which is why the word "limited" still occurs in corporate language.
The Supreme Court had tried once before to expand corporate power by stripping sovereignty from the state of New Hampshire in 1819. In response, many states wrote laws to ensure that they would retain their sovereignty – 19 "even amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures".
The 1886 ruling trumped these efforts, fulfilling Thomas Jefferson's prescient fears. In a letter to George Logan written on Nov. 12, 1816, he wrote:
I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country.
But these monied corporations did more than challenge our government, they corrupted it entirely and established a symbiotic relationship with it. This symbiotic relationship is openly anti-capitalistic, as undying corporations take advantage of laws originally written to protect the entrepeneurs who are the genuine engine of technological progress and economic growth, and use them to sustain their unnatural, parasitic life.
For example, Disney successfully lobbied Congress in 1998 to extend the period of copyright law for 20 years, increasing it to the life of the author plus 70 years. This is obviously of no benefit to a deceased author or his children, but it does prevent Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain while remaining technically within the constitutional dictates that copyrights be granted for a "limited time."
Corporations also use the government to protect their pool of investment money in the stock market. Due to the massive regulation of this anti-capitalist and unfree market, entrepreneurs needing to raise large sums of capital to challenge established corporate competitors are forced to submit to the predatory regime of the investment banks. In a genuinely free market, the owners of small, but growing businesses could simply sell their public shares over the Internet to anyone who wished to invest.
Indeed, with today's high-speed communications technology and digital money, there is no more need for Wall Street than there is for Congress. Eliminating both and replacing them with electronic systems – Free and Open Source, of course – would result in the realization of significantly more pure and efficient strains of capitalism and democracy alike.
One need only look at the various socialist and communist states around the world and the friendly relations that giant Western multinationals have with them to realize there is no fundamental link between capitalism and corporations. Gozprom, LUKoil and 400 other Soviet corporations were operating inside and outside the USSR prior to 1989, while Communist China not only permits corporations, but owns several that are listed on the Global Fortune 500. Some of them, such as PetroChina and Sinopec, are even traded on the Hong Kong and New York stock markets.
In fact, it is not the Chinese government, but the People's Liberation Army that owns the International Trust and Investment Corporation, which among other things has more than 200 Canadian corporations and is the largest "private" operator of shipping container terminals.
Not everything to which the idiot Left is hostile is necessarily good. It is impossible to assert that the age of untrammeled corporatism has been friendly to individual liberty or prosperity, especially when real wages have been falling for three decades – they are 14 percent lower than they were in 1972.
The genius of human invention and the undeniable blessings of capitalism do not stem from artificial structures at law, they come only from the mind of the individual. Conservatives would do well to remember that the next time that the corporations go to their comrades in Congress, demanding more violations of human freedom and more restrictions on individual liberty in order to sustain their vampirish unlives.
Absolutely not.
Well, there might be a good amount of state law involved, but I'm not a corporate lawyer. It is likely that the corporation's articles-of-incorporation (mandated by the state) have regulations about the process. The corporation's by-laws, in turn, can further regulate the process.
All dealt with sans nanny government involvement.
Right. Good examples. A lot of people died.
However, things have also changed:
A)Untold millions of people now flying global, country to country. The world is simply more mobile.
B)Our supply chain for food is now infinitely more complex and international to a much greater degree.
C)We are consuming more products from an ever increasing number of sources.
Also note, the FDA was strengthened significantly in the late 1930s after Massengill marketed an over the counter sulfa drug that had the unpleasant side effectof killing people. Today you see the same thing with Tylenol -- the company has been fighting the FDA idea of warning labels for years. You see, if you take Tylenol after drinking you could very well blow out your liver. People die every year from mixing Tylenol with liquor.
I recognize that corporations can operate in a manner that is detrimental to the state and people, e.g. the technology transfer to China under Clinton. The state has authority to defend society in those circumstances. The problem, I would argue, is not in corporate governance structures but in the sad politicians we sometimes elect.
Durasell“There was a booming economy. Age expectancy was lower. And industry wasn't playing around with as many toxins.
As for healthcare -- even discounting what happened in 1918, we're dealing with some nasty bugs now, HepA to HepZ, etc. Do you want the guy making your salad in the kitchen not to have access to an emergency room?”
How is this not an arguement for socialism again?
I don't argue for socialism, which doesn't work. On the other hand, we've seen what happens when we enter Herbert Spencer-land -- see: The London Poor, Henry Mayhew.
Let's not muddy the waters with bringing Spencer into it. Do you or do you not advocate socialistic government controlled program because people can't take care of themselves? Is it your theory that our mordern life has become so complex that we need "a villiage" to raise our children, take care of our retirement, our health care, and our safety among other things?
There should be a government program to madate my use of the spell button.
I absolutely do not advocate a socialist style government. However, I do feel there are certain functions, such as police, fire fighters, etc. that government is better at providing.
I'm not sure that either function is "better" served by government though. There are many cases of very successful privately run "police" and firefighters. Generally speaking I think any function is run better by a person who has the greatest motivation to succeed. The greatest motivators in business are profit and love of the job.
Depends on the environment. In the large city where there is a need for specialized equipment and training, then you need a government entity to help finance and maintain it. If you are talking about a small town police or fire department, then volunteers would probably work fine.
This is irresponsible nominalization - rhetoric not uncommon in today's MSM, by the way, e.g.: "...some say [followed by some baseless slander]" Get it out of the closet; be a man. WHO, exactly is saying this? Do "they" have any credibility?
Ahh, to be young and naive again.
And that is the way it should be.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Only individuals have God-given inalienable rights. And it is through our representative Government that We the People grant permission for the formation of corporations. In doing so, we extend the privilege of limited personal liability to individual investors with the expectation that the promotion of commerce will benefit the general welfare.
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.When corporate power corruptly influences Government such that policy no longer reflects nor benefits We the People, we have the inalienable right to exert our sovereignty as a free People.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
~Abraham Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
The large transnational corporations are in violation of these principles which define the relationship between business interests and our citizenry. They corruptly influence government policy for their own benefit, and to the detriment of our general welfare and national security. It is our sovereign right as citizens to impose whatever means are necessary to alter this situation and defend our individual liberties.
Capitalists assume the risks of competing in a competitive free market, and are rewarded only if they are successful in their endeavors.
Corporatists are risk averse, they utilize their economic/political influence to reduce and eliminate the risk associated with competing in a competitive market.
Are you saying that a survival is a measure of success? You can as well ask, "how is it possible" that Russians or Kambodians "managed to survive" the Gulag and Pol Pot?
You must be desperate to use such argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.