Jeff said:

"Ezeflyer…

By incorporating We the People, we bring corporations up to our level of fairness. We get to choose who we deal with instead of having reps of other corporations decide that for us." and, "Good argument for incorporating We the People."

"Or, we take ourselves DOWN to the level of corporations, which would make it MORE of an uneven playing field. Remember, the idea isn't to be EQUAL to corporations; it is to be the overseer and monitor of corporations, and more accurately, of the unfair and unequal consequences they currently are able to perpetuate over "natural born persons"."

Incorporating We the People is a way to meet corporations on a level playing field where we have the power and wealth of a multitrillion dollar corporation with an administration elected by and representing us, not other corporations, and where we collect DIVIDENDS on our equal shares of stock. (sorry to be repetitive but I think you just caught this thread).

We don't need to be the monitor or overseer of other corporations if we have the power to make them bid for our resources because they will oversee themselves if they want our business. And the we the people have shown that we want to do business with honest, responsible people, whether they're incorporated or not.

The "duping" is global....we've all been F-ked by the predators.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/comment/0,,2110555,00.html#article_continue

In this time of Crisis

With all the bad news emanating from the markets these days, one curious event stands out beyond all others and that is the almost total black-out of any news regarding J.P.Morgan Chase, and daily updates on the status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After all, these institutions are literally laces up one side and down the other with derivatives that have set the rest of the world's economies on their ears. Lets go down to the trading floor of the NY Stock exchange and see what we can find out.

Here's long-time veteran floor trader, and beloved contributor to our program Artfolio Schwartzencocker, lets see what he can tell us: "Hi Art, what can you tell us about the markets today"?
"Well Bill, the best way to describe trading of late, is to resort to that time honored slogan, 'it's a festerin' dog-turd out here kiddies, perfect time to find great leverage, so come-on in, the waters' as polluted as Nawlens at th breach".
"You're not just whistling Dixie Art; but tell me, why do you think the tank has been flushed, so to speak, Art"?
"Well Bill, best I can figure is that all the coke these ass clowns have snorted, smoked, and, or shoved up their collective asses all these decades has finally taken it's toll. Let's face it Bill, during high times, times is high, but times are so low now that they've took to huffing Off insect repellant."
"I'm certainly, spoon-fed-with-you-on-that Art, but didn't I just see Ben Bernzerkie of the Fed go by, bent over at the waste, with no pants, and a minor's lamp strapped over his crevice"?
"Right you are, Bill, he said he's out to find some answers for the American sheeple, and he's looking for the J.P.Morgan trading desk."
"Well, we will certainly be looking forward to that Art, and by the way Art, is that a kilbossa in your pocket"?
"No Bill, being a good Republican, there is always something about other people loosing their collective asses that excites th shit out of me; that and seeing a high ranking fed guy with a minors lamp strapped to his necked ass, wandering aimlessly here at the exchange I guess."
O.K. Art, but before we end, what can you tell us about Fannie and Freddie"?
Well Bill, you don't wanna go there while 'da minor's in da house', if you catch my drift."
"Not really Art but thanks for your usual, artful dodgery, and we'll be schmoozing with you later."

Ezeflyer...

"By incorporating We the People, we bring corporations up to our level of fairness. We get to choose who we deal with instead of having reps of other corporations decide that for us." and, "Good argument for incorporating We the People."

Or, we take ourselves DOWN to the level of corporations, which would make it MORE of an uneven playing field. Remember, the idea isn't to be EQUAL to corporations; it is to be the overseer and monitor of corporations, and more accurately, of the unfair and unequal consequences they currently are able to perpetuate over "natural born persons". Personally, I don't WANT the ability to incorporate and to allow a free-for-all by lumping myself, a natural born person, with a "corporate person". I, AND you, wouldn't stand a chance. As already mentioned in an earlier post, a corporate person can live forever, it can cut off parts of itself and turn them into new "persons", it can change its identity in a day, and it can have simultaneous residence in many different nations (or, another way of putting it, physically be at several places at one time). I, as a natural born person, can not do three of the four. PLUS, I can't compete with the massive wealth that corporations can accumulate over a short amount of time, and into perpetuity. I can't, but possibly you can. I don't know. If you can, I don't know HOW.

to become a corporation in idaho (2002) one had to:
have a company name
answer 5 questions
name 3 officers
pay $100

the state sends a piece of paper which will get the company an (ein) with the feds and the company is rolling..

the main reason for doing this is paper work..monies that are transferred between corporations require no documentation with the gov..that is 1099's in their various forms..
ken

Paul B. said:
"So if we can't change corporations by bringing them back down to earth, then we bring ourselves up to that level of lawlessness."

au contraire mon frere. By incorporating We the People, we bring corporations up to our level of fairness. We get to choose who we deal with instead of having reps of other corporations decide that for us.

"Real people should be allowed the same fluidity and freedoms as corporations."

Good argument for incorporating We the People.

ezeflyer: It's usually not a particular thing or expression that we need to approach directly when it comes to the issue of socio-economic justice, it's the underlying asymmetry. So if we can't change corporations by bringing them back down to earth, then we bring ourselves up to that level of lawlessness. The asymmetry of rights will then be resolved.

So if we can't argue that corporations are too-often used as organizational smoke to disguise, dilute and divert group crimes, then let's advocate the other way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Real people should be allowed the same fluidity and freedoms as corporations.

Paul B said:

"There are other ways to achieve some of Reich's ideas. Others have floated the idea of encorporating "We the People".
Does anyone know whether it's technically possible to encorporate oneself? Think of the possibilities: get a P.O. Box alongside the Halliburton subsidiaries in the Caymans, never have to pay taxes again, take advantage of Free Trade and basically move across borders at will, borrow beyond your wildest imagination and never have to worry about your credit rating. If you fail, you declare bankruptcy and simply re-encorporate."

That all depends on whether you and We the People, as equal shareholders with equal voting rights will allow it.

So far, the only problem I see with incorporating We the People is public acceptance of the idea of turning the reckless corporate machine on its head and having it work for all of us, instead of for other corporations. Like it or not, corporations have become institutionalized and ingrained in our society and the world.

MichaelPDA...

You're right on the mark. In the early days of our nation, corporations were established through charters in individual states, not unlike now. However, then, charters were issued for a fixed amount of time and for a specific purpose. Once the charter had run its course, it was up to the state to determine whether it should, or could, be extended. If it was deemed that it was "in the public good" to continue, a new charter was issued -- again, for a limited time. If it wasn't, it was revoked and the corporation ceased to exist (and function) any longer.

After the Civil War, corporations were emboldened (funny how war and corporate dominance make fine bed-fellows, huh?) and started an earnest effort to gain more power legally. This chipping-away culminated in the 1886 Supreme Court "decision", Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, that haunts and terrorizes democratic principles to this day.

Best...

Ridiculous!!

Coporations will NOT be virtuous if they don't have to pay taxes or don't have lobyists.

Eliminate corporat liability; stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

Am I all alone in thinking that we should strive for worker safety, keep corporations from poluting the air we breathe and the water we drink, keep corporations from making toxic toys. Not having any minimum wage laws makes no sense to me.

I say let a corporation be a person, but enforce the law. And when a corporation is responsible for murder, murder that corporation. The biggest problem in this county is that congress and judges let corporations get away with murder. As far as I can see from the above article, Reich would let them get away with murder too.

Why do half-measures? Instead let's NATIONALIZE all corporations and follow E.F. Schumacher's model: the public owns (at least) 50% of each so that it has a significant voice in corporate governance. They are public institutions now but the public has no voice or control. And while we're at it let's re-write the Constitution to make sure that no corporation is considered a "person".

There are other ways to achieve some of Reich's ideas. Others have floated the idea of encorporating "We the People".

Does anyone know whether it's technically possible to encorporate oneself? Think of the possibilities: get a P.O. Box alongside the Halliburton subsidiaries in the Caymans, never have to pay taxes again, take advantage of Free Trade and basically move across borders at will, borrow beyond your wildest imagination and never have to worry about your credit rating. If you fail, you declare bankruptcy and simply re-encorporate.

Heck, that beats reincarnation.

As mentioned, this started in 1886 when a U.S. Supreme Court reporter, or court clerk, created the term "corporate personhood" in his head-notes to the arguments pled before the court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This is "ground zero", if you will, for the begining of our lost rights and the dismantling of our republic. All subsequent corporate "rights" gains in our court system draw from what was incorrectly inserted into those head-notes.

For a broad and detailed explanation, as detailed in Unequal Protection - The Rise of Corporate Dominance and The Theft of Human Rights, link to www.thomhartmann.com/theft.shtml and read the history of this controversial case which is ultimately credited with starting the corporate ownership of our elected leaders, our government, our culture, and our very lives.

I think Reich did not forgot about the dimension of making people responsible in his article. That those in a corporation act in ways that are illegal and deceptive will be called before the court system, well I think Reich makes by implication.

At present by our legal system making a corporation responsible only alleviates personal responsibility to a large extent (and anyone who has seen the labyrinthine ways a class action suit is handled will know what I am talking about) but implicity supports the personhood of the corporation itself, which is what Reich is trying to get beyond by removal of this absurd legal argument.

Our present legal system does work to protect consumers or citizens whatsoever. Its convoluted and exasperating layer upon layer of stonewalling is built to serve the corporate interest. Don't think for a second that our government agencies serve the interests of the public any longer. They are a buffer between the citizenry and those in the corporations to draw out and water-down our recourse to action.

All of this is possible because of the "personhood" of the corporation. If we make individuals responsible, as Reich suggests, then those who will suffer the consequences of deceptive and illegal actions may be a bit less likely to engage in them knowing they can no longer behind the false shield of corporate personhood.

In Ohio, the first Constitution gave citizens the right to decide how long a corporation could last, what business it could engage in, and stated one corp could not buy another. The early citizens of our country (and in Ohio) knew that "we the epople" were the government. Over the suceeding years, of course, the powerful interests chipped away at this power until personhood was cidified into law in the latter half of the 19th century by the Supreme Court. As recently as this year we have seen the Supreme Court once again butress this falsehood of "corporate personhood" by declaring that we would be hampering a corporation's right to free speech if we disallow their putting money into political advertisements. All of this based upon the ridiculous notion that corporations are persons.

Reich has a smart way to proceed to turn this over, I think, umless I am missing something in what he says.

We need less corporation and more co-operatives... The most productive area in Europe with the least unemployement has the most cooperative businesses.

Check out wwww.ica.coop for a new/old way.

and consider these words by an economic professor at the Univesity of Bologna...
"Those who see competition and the corporate commercial marketplace as the only economic drivers are incomplete as citizens...the lack of co-operation and reciprocity is the sign of an immature society."

He forgot about individuals who decide the effects of any actions carried out by employees of said corporations.

If any harm comes from any act carried out by an employee, that employee would be held lible for the consequences. Reich forgot about this dimension.

"Are you suggesting that the "corporate head" has rights as both an individual and as a corporate head or simply as an idividual?"

As an individual, of course. I'd be hard pressed to make the case one can have rights beyond their own sphere of rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment, created at the end of the Civil War to grant basic rights to freed slaves, was misused by lawyers representing corporate interests to extend additional rights to businesses -- far more frequently than to African Americans. In 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, the Supreme Court implied (actually the clerk's head-notes implied) that corporations were "persons" and entitled to the same rights granted to people under the Bill of Rights. Since that case, America has lost the legal structures that allowed for people to control corporate behavior.

As a result, the largest transnational and multinational corporations fill a role today that has historically been filled by monarchies. They control the world's wealth and exert power over the lives of most of the world's citizens. They've become the rudder that steers the ship of most of human experience, and they're steering it solely by their primary value -- growth and profit at any expense, and values that have become destructive for most of life on our planet.

This new feudalism was not what our founders envisioned for America.

To iowairish...

A juristic (or juridical) person is an artificial entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if it were a single composite individual for certain purposes, or in some jurisdictions, for a single person to have a separate legal personality other than their own. This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law recognizes them and allows them to ACT AS natural persons for SOME purposes—most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts. This concept goes by many names, including "corporate personhood".

A juristic person is sometimes called a legal person, artificial person, or legal entity (although this term is sometimes understood to include natural persons as well). This could include cooperatives, trade unions, community organizations, etc., etc., in addition to the prototypical "corporation" that we've been addressing.

The problem with corporations is that their goal is the pursuit of profit, which is then controlled and enjoyed by some limited group (CEOs, investors, etc). They should get out of chasing profits. Provide a decent product at a price that keeps you in business. And running a corporation or a bank should no more be a path to vast riches than running a college or a church. So long as you have a group of superrich, they are going to scheme to maintain their riches and transmit their privileges to their families. They are only human, after all.

After the global markets crash, there will be opportunity to change the economic structure of the world to better reflect our spiritual aspect. (I said spiritual, NOT religious, as they are not the same.)

MtnGoat September 7th, 2007 6:16 pm

"I don't have a problem with this. This means any corporate head should be able to use his rights to spend campaign cash anyway he likes, as a person, sue, as a person, and use his speech rights, as a person, to advertise."

MtnGoat:

Are you suggesting that the "corporate head" has rights as both an individual and as a corporate head or simply as an idividual?

nwfisher September 7th, 2007 4:41 pm "Corporations are 'people' in the same sense your neighborhood association, or your political party, or your local coop, or your union, or greenpeace, or PETA, or any other group are. They are a group of people who have come together for a common purpose."

I'm ignorant on the types of organizations to which "personhood" has been granted. I assumed that it was only those registered with the IRS as C Corps or S Corps or some like designation.

Forgive my ignorance nwfisher and everyone else out there. Which groups PRECISELY have the 'personhood' with all of its constitutional privileges?

jimsenter got it right--- remove corp "personhood" FIRST, then the rest of the formula. Otherwise we get CHINA. Which as an afterthought is very interesting to watch--some kind of bizarre race-to-the-bottom on steroids.
Thom Hartmann "UnEqual Protection" is a hero.
I hope that the following is not toooo far over the edge for most of you, but, As an amateur secular cultural anthropologist, I submit for your consideration the proposition that:
The corporation is the Anti-christ referred to in Rev of St John. I suggest that J and the 12 were not just carpenters and fishermen, but were people just like---guess who---us blogsters!, on to something bigger than consensus reality, who happen to make their bread working in Caesar's world like we do.
natural person---artificial person,
christness:human---antichristness:corporation, get it?
compare all the nastiness promised in Rev with the nastiness produced by corporate/externalizing/profitgod entities---Bhopal, pollution, GM crops, dead bees, wars over oil, aids, global climate mess, famines, genocide, on and on.
Enough for now.
Cheers, snydly.
www.earthlingenterprises.com and
www.corpisb.org are not set up for mail yet, but stay tuned.

Well, this is evidence that even former U.S. Secretaries of Labor with a Doctorate of Jurisprudence from Yale University eventually arrive.

Too bad he didn't come to this conclusion before Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement.

Better late than never!

Reich is right - assuming that every decision made within a company can be directly traced back to the Decider who can then be held accountable. Corporations, like Gonzo's inJustice Department, claim rule by "consensus," and then each of the consigned deny responsibility, and the victims are left holding the bag. Ending corporate criminal liability means enhancing personal liability enforcement against any asshole CEO who says, for example, that his cigarettes do not cause cancer. If he or she knew they'd lose every dime and rot in jail as a result of their decision to lie about their product, they'd think twice.

Corporations are "people" in the same sense your neighborhood association, or your political party, or your local coop, or your union, or greenpeace, or PETA, or any other group are. They are a group of people who have come together for a common purpose. I'm ok with stripping away their right to free speech, right to sue and be sued, right to contribute to political campaigns, etc... as long as all those other groups get ther same treatment.

I totally agree that the first order of business would be to dump the constitutional rights of corporations. Granted, there has to be accountability in there somewhere, and who's accountable? One poster said the CEO. CEOs come and go. All the people in a corporation come and go.

How about viewing a corporation as a vehicle? And making the driver accountable. Who would be doing the driving? It's isn't the workers; it isn't the people on the various rungs of the ladder; and it's not the CEOs. IT'S THE SHAREHOLDERS. They're the driving force behind the corporations, always pushing for higher dividends; putting the pressure on the CEO, who in turn puts the screws to those on down the line, and in the end it's the workers having to work harder, put in longer hours, no longer able to take vacations, get less pay, and little or no benefits, all helping to bring those dividends up.

And I'd bet anything if there was a way to check it out, that the majority of American corporation shareholders aren't even American citizens.

It's a fact that corporations ("Big Business", if you will) have inherited rights that only "We the People", or "natural persons", were intended by the framers who originally crafted the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In Thom Hartmann's excellent book, Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and The Theft of Human Rights, he vividly explains that when a new human is born, he/she is given a Social Security number and instantly, from the moment of birth, is protected by the full weight and power of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is the way the system was designed, and it's how we all agreed it should be. Humans get human rights. They're protected. We are, after all, fragile living things that can be suppressed and abused by the powerful, if not protected.

Similarly, when papers called articles of incorporation are submitted to governments in America, another type of new "person" is brought forth into the nation. Just like a human, that new "person" gets a government-assigned number (a EIN).

Unfortunately, under our current agreements, the new corporate person is instantly endowed with many of the rights and protections of natural personhood. This corporate person is neither male nor female, doesn't eat or breathe, can't be enslaved, can't give birth, doesn't fear prison, and can't be executed if found guilty of wrongdoing. This corporate person can live forever, it can cut off parts of itself and turn them into new "persons", it can change its identity in a day, and it can have simultaneous residence in many different nations. It is not a human, but rather a creation of humans. Nonetheless, the new corporation gets many, if not most, of the constitutional protections our founders only gave humans in the Bill of Rights. Corporations aren't even mentioned.

For America's first century, courts all the way to the Supreme Court repeatedly said that corporations do not have the same rights as humans. It's only been since 1886 that the Bill of Rights (and the Equal Protection Amendment) have been explicitly applied to corporations. It's been downhill since then. As corporations (artificial persons) have garnered more constitutional rights, humans (natural persons) have paid a horrific price. It's been the "license to kill" of the Military/Industrial Complex.

Brilliant!

Reich is on to something here.

Only people should pay taxes.
Only people should should be held accountable.
Only people should get standing in courts.
Only people should contribute to finance elections.

Take away the corporations "rights" which they should have never been given.

It's how Americans can get back their democracy. Wake-up people.

In my defense, ZPF, I am painfully aware that there is not a single person responsible. That adds the charge of conspiracy.

This l'il feller is normally full of prune dip: but, it looks like he's on the right track. Responsibilty and liablility should be assumed by the CEOs just as the Politicians must assume responsibility for their wrongheaded actions based on avarice.

vinlander
The problem in corporations is that you can never really blame one person, and it would be a complete nightmare in most cases to pinpoint who really was responsible for a decision.

I think a lot of the inequality that goes on in corporations would stop if it was clear who was responsible for an action, and stood behind it.

I agree with ALL of the above and with Prof. Reich. Removing corporate personhood will put the liability on the decisionmakers. But it is unlikely that the oligarchy, who is ultimately responsible, will allow it even if their slate is wiped clean beforehand.

The missing link here is the implicit personal liability of CEOs, CFOs, boards of directors and shareholders. No more corporate liability is fine if it is replaced with personal criminal liability.

I agree with rjmart and Kristina, that this is a powerful concept that could have powerful effects on the balance between government and corporate power. Not likely with the current court without a constitutional amendment, since the legal status of corporations is established as a supreme court precedent. On the positive side I think this could appeal to many who are socially and legally conservative but don't like empire or corporate power.

If a campaign got started it could cross party lines gain large popular support. Getting such a campaign going when we can't even stop this war or face the reality of global warming is a tough sell. If you did get it going wouldn't it be logical to extend the logic to political parties and make everyone run on their own credibility and accountability?

you know how it would go in THAT man's Washington--- they'd pass the repeal of corporate income taxes, white collar crime laws, and then FORGET to pass the repeal of corporate personhood and we'd be left with the worst of both worlds.

I don't trust Reich. Remember he was the man who brought us NAFTA.

peoplefirst, I agree and I think I know what he's getting at. If the corporation itself cannot be liable for wrong doing the actual person in charge of said company would have to be held accountable instead. It would certainly cut back on corporate crime if the individual knew HE had to pay personally. On the taxation of profit, if they curtail all the loopholes that ceo's use to funnel profits into their own pockets and tax the ceo's out the ass I can see it working.

But think about the implications of what Reich is proposing.

If corporations aren't citizens, then they can be ruled to have no right to participate in, or even influence, US elections. Over time, everything changes.

This proposal is a substantive way to undercut the corporate capitalist oligarchy, yet it's phrased in a way that might make it politically feasible.

Sounds like pieces are missing. If corporations
don't have criminal liability, who/what compensates
injured parties? (lead, cigarettes, faulty parts or
equipment) The employees, the board, the stockholders
(part of the reason for a corporation is to protect
the stockholders from such things)? If there is no
burden of responsibility, there will be no attempt
at ethical behavior.

If there is no corporate income tax, then who pays
the tax on the profits? Sure, dividends get taxed,
but does this mean as long as dividends are not
paid out a corporation can continue to accrue untold
wealth indefinately?

Nope, something is missing here.

"We can have a vibrant democracy as well as a vibrant capitalism," Reich says.

"But to get there, we have to separate the private from the public spheres."

pure utopian fantasy. as long as we live under a profit-driven system where the many are exploited by the few we cannot have true democracy or a separation between private and public spheres. under capitalism there will always be rich elites who use their wealth and power for their own benefit and corrupt the government, media and public discourse.

we need to re-organize society so that workers (the people who collectively produce *all* of society's wealth) democratically decide how to run their workplaces, communities and how best to allocate the goods and services we produce. we must abolish private property--a legal fiction that enables a tiny minority of wealthy parasites to dominate and exploit the vast majority of humanity.

I'm still trying to get over the title of Reich's recent book Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America. There's hardly a liberal in the entire U.S. Congress, yet Reich thinks that somehow we liberals are poised to take control of America and keep it? Good luck with your new corporate responsibility package there Robert. Dreamer.

Using campaign spending limits to get America better politicians is the only way to solve America's problems enough!

So, here we have corporate globalization in full swing capitalizing on everything from water to air. Corporations are wealthier than countries, they own all politicians and now Mr. Reich thinks there is a snowball's chance we could even think of reforming corportations.

Little late don'cha think Mr. Reich? Let's hold off the discussion 'till after we drop another nuke. There will be plenty of time to ponder reforms then from our bunkers.

Many people have known for a long time that corporations were out of control and had too much power. But, now they're not out of control. They're in total control. Gee, i guess it just sorta happened, huh?

I don't have a problem with this. This means any corporate head should be able to use his rights to spend campaign cash anyway he likes, as a person, sue, as a person, and use his speech rights, as a person, to advertise.