It's a start I guess. Maybe from there the focus can swing to capitalism itself. That's really the root of the problem. You can't kill the weed if you don't get the roots.

I've been against corporations having this much power since about the age of 10, when I first heard that they did. And that was even before the Reagan era, as I was born in 1958.

When Reagan took office, business paid 36% of all taxes paid in this country. Now they pay around 8%. In that same time frame, prices have gone up around 400% for most things, for thing like cars, about 800%. Have your wages gone up by a corresponding amount? Nope. And the ultra wealthy have seen their tax rates go from 72% to 18%, while yours have gone UP to about 35%. This is the outcome of Reagan's Alzheimer's economic plan. And now your jobs have gone off to other lands, along with the factories you used to work in, and the companies have gotten tax breaks to screw you and your kids out of your lives.

This is what happens when you let those who live by greed make all your decisions. No, greed is NOT good. It's destructive, it's deadly, even. That is why it's one of the 7 deadly sins. Not the 7 okay sins, but the DEADLY sins. People die from it's effects, as is evidenced by the fact that we have over 48 MILLION people with no health care at all, and the insurance companies get 30% of every dollar spent on health care in this country. What else is that but greed?

Corporations should not be allowed the same rights are humans. When a corporation can get a cold, then they can have human rights. Corporations are artificial constructs set up for one purpose: to make money. They are not humans, they do not live by a set of morals, they exist only to make money, and if that costs the rest of us our country, so be it, according to the "rules" we have now. THAT is not acceptable.

Capitalism does not work without regulations and rules. When they are allowed to run free, disaster happens, and always has. The 30's are a great example, and we are now living with the results of the same kind of thinking that brought us that depression. This next one will be far worse, as at that time we didn't have a $10 TRILLION debt on top of that. Now we do.

Time to reel them back in and break them up if need be. Corporations can be given the death penalty, and in fact, were originally only allowed a 20 year lifetime. They could only do ONE thing, and after 20 years, they were dissolved. Time for a return to that set of rules.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html
The beginning of the end.

ColdWarBaby47--

The roots of capitalism are in the law that give corporations their goal--the unqualified duty of directors to make money for shareholders. Although corporate personhood is a red herring, it does assist in the corporate destruction of the public health, the environment and other elements of the public interest.

The real problem is not that from time to time the public interest is abused by corporations, but that corporations do not cease their attack once it becomes apparent. The reason they do not cease and desist is because the corporate law tells directors it is their duty to protect and enhance shareholder value. By the time their arttack becomes apparent, the company usually has millions and sometimes billions of dollars invested in doing business the way that they are.

Liberal democracies allow destructive behavior to continue until a new law is passed by the people's elected representatives. This creates a serious advbantage for anyone powerful enough to frustrate the democratic process. Corporate directors pursue their duty and use this advantage (and their constitutional right to free speech) to continue their lawful, but immoral, behavior.

Without that constitutional right they would still abuse the public interest if it was "necessary" to protect and enhance shareholder value. The legal duty of directors makes it necessary. This is where the root of the problem lies. This duty should be changed to let directors know that it is bounded by a duty not to harm the environment, human rights, the public health and safety, the welfare of the communities in which the corporation operates and the diginity of employees.

I've been against corporations having this much power since about the age of 10,

In forty years of " anti-corporatism " have you walked or just talked ? Do you watch television or read A MSM newspaper? if yes you are pro-corporatism . Do you buy drive new cars instead of second-hand , old jalopies ? if yes you are pro=corporatism . Do you grow your own food ? if no then unless you eat cooked barley instead of special k for breakfast you are pro-corporatism. The only way to rein in ( your words ) the power of corporations , information , travel or food is to boycott them . Holy smokes , you and most Americans are incredibly stupid when it comes to discretionary spending .

Kinda tough isn't it To actually walk instead of just talk

Tell me what you actually do to deserve the lofty anti-corporatism badge of honour.

Just when you think it's the corporations, you find out it's your corporate government that is bad for public health. Universal Healthcare a plan to kill everyone equally?

I second RichM's comments (posted at 4:17) regarding Ronald White's rant. RW's cheap shots are both unwarranted and counterproductive.

Besides, unless RW built the computer that he used to post the above comment from scratch, and went out into the woods to cut down the tree from which he fashioned a chair upon which to sit while he vented his spleen, he has no business questioning the worth of anyone's anti-corporate stance.

On another and much more positive note, I am reading Charles Long's "How to Survive Without a Salary", in which the author espouses the many benefits to living a conserver, rather than a consumer, lifestyle. I recommend the book to anyone who seeks to maintain the quality of her or his life while at the same time putting less money in the pockets of corporations.

First, the problem isn't capitalism, but is, instead, shareholders, who insist on short-term profits before all else. If businesses were owned and operated by one owner only, beholding to no one else, he or she could work for the long term good, instead of just immediate profits above all else, and much of the problem we're having with corporations wouldn't exist.

Second, thanks to ntm1972 for the tip re "How to Survive Without a Salary."

Ticonderoga,

Why do companies work for shareholders? Answer, because our laws tell them to. This is perfectly logical. Shareholders are the owners. They provide the necessary capital. What is not logical is that we tell them to work for shareholders without any consideration of the public interest. This is what needs to be changed.

Okay, let's say that I am the topic of conversation, even though I'm not supposed to be. What have I done to "deserve the lofty anti-corporatism badge of honor"? First off, I'm not asking for one. I'm merely stating my long founded and held attitude that the large corporation is not the best way to run things in this or any other country, especially politically. Sorry that such an attitude offends you so much.

For the record, I build or recycle all my own computers (I have 8 of them), and I don't use MS on any of them. I don't buy things I don't need, and I don't tell others to buy things they don't need, either. I don't own a cell phone, and I have never owned a new car. I am a professional musician, and I own either older instruments (made for me by either my brother or other local builders), or I make my own. I run my own company that does audio and video recordings, CD and DVD duplication, and if I could make my own disc blanks, I would. I don't have the latest and greatest equipment, but I do know how to use what I have. The only thing I do have the latest and greatest of is software, because I use Linux, and it's free for the download.

Corporations have been given the same rights, and in fact, even more rights than YOU have, and they pay less in taxes for those rights. Yes, they pay more in payola to buy your congress people and senators, but that is hardly a positive feature, is it? They have made sure that you get to pay for their wars, for their tax bills, for their very existence while ignoring yours and the fact that you are losing ground and have been since 1973. But go ahead and be the biggest apologist for the corporations around. I'm sure they love the free help in propaganda.

Call me what you want, but it's not going to change my attitude. I do as much to stay away from the corporate world as I can, which is not easy in this culture. I don't shop at WalMart, and I don't do the fast food thing, either. If I had enough land in my yard, I WOULD grow my own food more than I do (which I DO, BTW). Sorry I don't live up to your expectations, but to be honest, I don't really care. I'm not asking you to live up to my expectations, and all I do ask is that you grant me the same respect I grant you. Sorry that is too much for you to understand.

Cavemen learned to deal with the invention of fire --- with its benefits and dangers ---- better than modern man learned to deal with the same duality of corporations.

Maybe the TV 'cavemen' from GEICO can write us an insurance policy that pays-off if the corporations destroy our only, small, endangered planet -- earth.

Certain industries should not be for profit. We socialized the military, police departments, homeland security, airport security, post office, education, fire and police departments,etc.

Health care should be socialized, and it is for the population that is not profitable for corporations, mainly the elderly, disabled and those living in poverty, and state subsidies for 20 million illegal immigrants, as well as the worlds largest prison population (2 million+). Over 50% of HC is paid for by government socialized HC.

Congress is charged with the responsibility for ensuring the general welfare of the people. They have failed to do so. Democrats and Republicans alike. Of course, if everyone had health care, people would live longer, and living standards would be higher, and the neo-malthusians and globalists do not like that. Less people, lower living standards, thats the agenda

Rich M,

What evidence do you have to support some of your claims. For instance:

1. On the contrary, even if businesses were owned & run by one owner only, most of the sociopathic behavior of business would remain.

2. On balance, the more cut-throat the business, the more likely it is to succeed.

3. But most of the time, and over the long run, the cut-throats will win.

4. But once businesses grow into "big business," these personal characteristics recede in importance, & the tendency becomes almost irresistible for companies to try to get away with everything they can possibly get away with.

I am not quarreling with whether you are right or wrong, I would just like to know what evidence you have to support your statements. Are they based in fact or just theory. I am especially interested in understanding why you think number 4 is true. What makes it so? Could what makes it so be eliminated or changed? Or is the situation hopeless as long as there are big corporations?

Part of Ralph Nader's presidential platform is to do away with corporate personhood.

God Bless Ralph. Of course corporate personhood is not the cause of the problem. If it was, corporations in other countries would be behaving differently. Japan, Germany, the UK, Australia, etc. have never heard of the Santa Clara case which first enunciated the concept that corporations are entitled to constitutional protection. Companies in those countries (and others) are not protected by the US Constitution, yet they often behave just as badly. Let's ask what US corporations have in common with companies from other countries that causes them to abuse the public interest. Once that is ascertained maybe a solution can be found.

The Code33, when businesses grow big they attract people who like big businesses and lo and behold it's for the love of power and control. Sure, once in a blue moon someone with ethics builds a big business and keeps it ethical but this is too rare to be worth anything. Capitalism is fundamentally antisocial as RichM said, and see M. Albert for more on that, but with the size of businesses limited, and with ethical behavior imposed one way or another, the anti-social aspect fades in practice, even though it remains in theory. Parecon would probably still be better.

If capitalism is going to be responsible, the regulations have to be imposed, and one approach seems best - limit the size of businesses, and enforce regulations by giving the people the information and responsibility to demand from the markets what is in the society's better interests. This is how markets are supposed to work. This keeps producers out of the influence game and keeps consumers from becoming victims. Industrial production becomes a lower tier thing to do while civic duty becomes a higher tier thing to do. This change of attitude is essential, and we'll instill it with the new K-12 civics curriculum.

It's pretty easy to observe small businesses and see that they are relatively free from corruption compared to big businesses. Small business owners have reputations to uphold in the local community. Small businesses are also much more efficient than big businesses, contrary to the "efficiencies of scale" myth. Small businesses enhance market stability, increase economic/political independence and dignity of people, and enhance regional culture and character. There are very few if any industries that require big businesses.

I think the problem may be deeper and more insidious: We've reduced people and other life forms to abstractions, and we've elevated machines and abstractions to the status of demi-gods. Disempowering corporations would be a good step back to creating a true civilization, however.

rtdrury,

Thanks. Tell me more about:

"If capitalism is going to be responsible, the regulations have to be imposed, and one approach seems best - limit the size of businesses, and enforce regulations by giving the people the information and responsibility to demand from the markets what is in the society's better interests. This is how markets are supposed to work. This keeps producers out of the influence game and keeps consumers from becoming victims. Industrial production becomes a lower tier thing to do while civic duty becomes a higher tier thing to do. This change of attitude is essential, and we'll instill it with the new K-12 civics curriculum."

Is the only way to make corporations responsible to limit their size? I am a little sceptical about K-12 civics classes doing the trick (as I am about more ethics classes in business schools). Why do you think this will work? I agree that civic duty has to have a form of precedence over industrial production (and profits). How to achieve it is the question?

JohnR,

What do you mean by "disempowering corporations" and why would that be a "good step back" to creating a "true civilization"? Is this mere rhetoric or do you have something specifically in mind?

This is quite a late day for a post here, but I'll try to answer The Code33's question to me. A true civilization to me is one in which every person is treated as sacred and the purpose of that society is the actualization of that person's full potential. In a corporate-society, people are unimportant. They are merely fodder for the abstract machinery. There is a lot of implicit ideolology behind that machinery. It's considered to be radical to even question that ideolology, but there are a few of us left that still do. I believe the "produce local, consume local" movement can do a lot to resist the domination of the binge-consumption culture. I favor some form of socialism as the means to disempower corporations ( although many people I respect don't). Ultimately, the linchpin to my true (ideal) civilization is the raising of individual consciousness to the level where people want to use their freedom to make virtuous choices. I'm thinking of an interview of the late William Sloane Coffin by Ralph Nader. I think it was posted on Z NET a few years ago. I believe that what I'm trying to get at here is along the same lines of the ideas of these two men expressed in that article.

Corporations are like a shell, created as a shield behind which owners/shareholders and their agents/managers can hide from the law.

Perhaps it is time to apply the Nuremberg Principles to corporations and their agents, making everyone individually and collectively responsible for their actions and for those dictated by their superiors?

One still wouldn't be able to incarcerate a corporation, but the full force of law would apply to anyone acting in its name.

Nuremberg! That's the ticket!
Thanks blucheek. I've been wrestling with this for some time without a clear image. You just gave it to us.