Alex
06-18-2010, 11:56 PM
Rep Barton seems to think Corporations have rights and are citizens and are recognized by the ‘Constitution.’ Ill gotten members of the SC have shared this nonsense opinion. Barton seems to think that a foreign corporation has rights and obviously rights above and beyond the rights of citizens.
But the framers didn’t like corporations and wanted to outlaw them and in a bitter fight came close. Corporations are not forever, we will find a better way. Corporations may have means available against other organizations that look like rights and the citizens and people who make up the corporations may have rights but no corporation has any actual rights (shaky as the construct is) against a citizens. Any such notion would be a duplication of rights and create a higher order of citizenship nullifying the lower orders.
The people who control corporations sometimes try to use the corporation as a platform to manipulate elections but corporations don’t vote. Corporations aren’t entitled to secrecy. Secrecy would be the organization analogue of individual privacy but completely at odds with individual privacy. Look at states, no state is willing the respect the secrecy of another in practice, and that’s a hint about organization secrecy it’s a myth just as organizations are paper entities without rights.
This is not government by foreign corporations and there is nothing unconstitutional about a President treating a totalitarian structure or system like a corporation for what it is and in a way compatible with what it is. It deserves no more consideration than any totalitarian structure that is not a household or family. The economics must yield to the politics and every corporation must give at least as much back to the society as it takes and not be a conspiracy to shift risk and burden for gain with return to society. Even if a corporation were conceived of as merely a supply chain its power derived from economic concentration is an imposition. The rules corporations and the thinking about it need to reflect that its primary purpose far in advance of profit taking or ROI for dead weight share holders is to provide a return for society
But the framers didn’t like corporations and wanted to outlaw them and in a bitter fight came close. Corporations are not forever, we will find a better way. Corporations may have means available against other organizations that look like rights and the citizens and people who make up the corporations may have rights but no corporation has any actual rights (shaky as the construct is) against a citizens. Any such notion would be a duplication of rights and create a higher order of citizenship nullifying the lower orders.
The people who control corporations sometimes try to use the corporation as a platform to manipulate elections but corporations don’t vote. Corporations aren’t entitled to secrecy. Secrecy would be the organization analogue of individual privacy but completely at odds with individual privacy. Look at states, no state is willing the respect the secrecy of another in practice, and that’s a hint about organization secrecy it’s a myth just as organizations are paper entities without rights.
This is not government by foreign corporations and there is nothing unconstitutional about a President treating a totalitarian structure or system like a corporation for what it is and in a way compatible with what it is. It deserves no more consideration than any totalitarian structure that is not a household or family. The economics must yield to the politics and every corporation must give at least as much back to the society as it takes and not be a conspiracy to shift risk and burden for gain with return to society. Even if a corporation were conceived of as merely a supply chain its power derived from economic concentration is an imposition. The rules corporations and the thinking about it need to reflect that its primary purpose far in advance of profit taking or ROI for dead weight share holders is to provide a return for society