Guest Post by Jesse
Dr. Robert Hare is describing what a psychopathic corporate culture might be like, not what all corporations are.
Corporations can have personalities if you will, based on the character of their leadership, and the traits and tendencies which they tend to seek out and reward.
Governments may have the same character traits, whether they choose to call it culture, or tone, or philosophy. Certain behaviours are rewarded, and others are suppressed and discouraged. Quite often a few like-minded and powerful personalities may set the character of the organization, and choose subordinates who are either servile or of a simple mind.
Otherwise corporations are not people, and do not deserve the rights of people because it grants to the corporation mangers a power that makes most other individuals unequal under the law. It is an extension of power and rights by proxy, greatly leveraged.
If an individual has a voice, the individual managers of a major corporation can obtain a much greater voice, one applied by the power and money of a large organization. These are the modern übermenschen that we are unwittingly raising like titans over the world of real people.
And when they are singularly amoral, or focused for anti-social purposes, or criminal activities, the resultant damage of which they are capable can be devastating, not only to individuals, but even to towns, cities, and small nations.
[img
[/img]
That drawing on lloph business card is the maze just to get into his office and be told to fuck off.
Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook …..
Corporations are nothing but a creation of the human imagination to allow it, in many cases, to do things that would otherwise be considered amoral, unethical and sometimes illegal, if they were to be done by individuals. They often allow the worst aspects of human nature to manifest under a shield of anonymity and subconsiously allow those part of it and those outside to blame “it” instead of people.
That was a dopple llpoh, but I find it near the truth. businesses must control their money, and failure to do so results in bankruptcy.
I am amazed at how few people understand why corporations have the legal structure they do. Quite simply, they are structured so as to insulate private individuals against the loss of their personal assets should the business go under. Without that insulation, people would be loathe to invest in businesses. If individuals were jointly and severally liable for the losses of the business, no one would invest their money.
Corporations ARE by definition amoral. They exist to serve the interests of their shareholders. They do not exist to serve the interests of the community at large – but that is a by-product of their existence, for the most part. Imagine the world without large corps – there would be very few advancements made in tech, science, etc.
Do corporations act unethically/illegally? Not in my book. The employees of a corp do, but a corp is not a living entity – it is a legal construct, nothing more. The people running them, or the people working for them, act appallingly at times. They stop working for the shareholders, and work for themselves to maximize their own returns. And sometimes they do extraordinary bad things to cover up mistakes they have made, or to try to correct mistakes they have made.
These people need to be punished severely. But it never happens – or it very rarely happens. That is the fault of the govt, and of the people, and of those running the corp, and the shareholders for allowing it.
We need the corporate structure. We also need a society that demands accountability, and that punishes wrong-doers.
Corporations are people.
The Supreme Court said so.
And Mitt Romney agreed.
Just because Mitt Romney said something doesn’t make it wrong. He’s probably said 2+2=4 a few times. Think of of all of the state and federal laws that say “no person shall…(fill in the blank,…dump toxic sludge into the lake, leave their garbage along the side of the road, etc.)” if a corporation were not a person in the legal sense, they could claim to be exempt from a lot of law. When it comes to Citizens United, Anthony Kennedy’s questioning laid bare the problems with censoring a corporation’s political speech. How could you stop the (eeeeeviillll) Koch Brothers from publishing or broadcasting their opinions without also proscribing Simon and Schuster from publishing a political novel or the NY Times from publishing its opinions? It’s completely unworkable. How do you restrain Citizens United Corp without also censoring Dog Eat Dog Films?
Robert Hare is a Canadian psychologist who spent his entire life studying imprisoned criminal psychopaths. Looks like he’s branching out his world of voodoo to include corporations. Quite a stretch.
We need to eliminate the word “doctor” from the entire field of psychiatry and psychology. IJG (I’m Just Guessing) is a much more appropriate title.
Okay, I’m not a lawyer (thank Ahura Mazda) but I haz a question. If corporations were not recognized as a “legal person” then they could not be sued, right? I’m not sure if this is a good idea or not. On one hand, the corporation has a lot more assets than it’s officers, on the other hand, the officers can hide behind the corporation to avoid culpability for wrongdoing. Of course the idea was that the board of directors would actually protect the stockholders rather than the officers. I suspect that’s the locus of the problem.
Nothing like taking a quote out of context: Here is what Romney said:
“Corporations are people, my friend . . . Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings, my friend.”
He was stating that corporations are people in that they serve the interests of people. He was not blindly stating that they are people.
Here are the major decisions/laws re corporations with respect to what is generally, but erroneously referred to as corporations being people:
In 1819, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as people to enter into, and enforce, contracts.
That seems reasonable, doesn’t it? Otherwise, corporations coud not enter into nor enforce contracts.
In 1906, the court ruled that for legal purposes, corporations are “persons”
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” (1 U.S.C. section 1).
That seems reasonable, doesn’t it? Otherwise, corporations would not be bound to follow all laws of the US.
The issue of corporate personhood arose in the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United, which held that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means unions and corporations should be able to engage fully in the political process and as such, governments are restricted from limiting their political spending.
I am less certain that this decision should have been made – effectively it means that any organization has the right to engage in the political process/fund political persons/parties. But it has some validity – if it was not so determined, how could you have a free press? How could corporations speak out contrary to laws, etc., doing damage to their businesses? Etc. How could unions (may they rot in hell) lobby for their members?
The Supreme Court (nor Romney, in my opinion, unless his remarks are taken out of context) said that corporations are people. The courts have ruled that they have the same legal rights and obligations as people. Which makes sense to me.
Z – as per the above, you are quite right. Without the laws as stand, corps could not sue, be sued, enter into contracts, etc.
There are legal recourse to pursue officers/employees that break the law. They are hardly ever pursued. That is the problem.
Citizens United v FEC and Mconald v Chicago were two of the best decisions for liberty in the last generation.
Hey all ye idiots ,the one function of a corporation is to make a profit for it’s shareholders.It is not the responsibility of corporations to create jobs ,charity or doing anything for the community or country.It’s sole purpose is to make as much money as possible for it’s investors.No other reason for a corporation to exist.
SSS ,is right about Psychology and Psychiatry being junk science .Not one bit of proof to support any of their theories .Just like evolution .No laboratory proof at all.It’s all bullshit of the highest order.