Heidegger

i can only explain american corporation law in terms of american law. not much of a piece of reasoning. but i have been a practicing
lawyer for 42 years and here is the factual and legal premise. do with it what you will.

the creation of a business corporation has its roots in mercantilism. modern corporate law long before i went to law school in the 60s was firmly established in the theory that a corporation was a “legal person” entitled to sue and be sued in its own name. it paid taxes as a separate entity and could be prosecuted separate from the stockholders or officers. the reason for this was the idea that the corporation would have limited liability, meaning that its stockholders were shielded from being sued for the corporation’s negligence, breach of contract, environmental torts, etc.

this was supposed to spur innovation and risk taking like drilling for oil or starting airlines or whatever. and it worked. if the numeous failures of a creative idea were to entail the losses being paid by its inventor, innovation would never have overtaken america. for good or bad, it worked, and the corporations were able to raise enough capital to risk new ideas.

whether that was a good idea or not, whether as policy the stockholders should be forced to assert more control over the corporation to be good and honest, that was the decision that lies at the core of corporate law. they invest a certain amount and risk that, but not their other holdings, their houses, future income or assets.

when dealing with a small corporation with limited assets, bankers and savvy purveyors insist on personal guarantees (cosigning) by the stockholders or officers in ma and pa corporations like stores and contractors. they don’t agree to be limited to the assets of the corporation to pay back loans.

the corporation as a legal person has almost all the rights of a person. can’t have a baby or endure and abortion except through its dumb lending practices.

most of the abuse by directors and officers…high bonuses, huge salaries, perks, should all be subject to challenge or even suit by the stockholders at the annual meeting and in stockholder’s derivative lawsuits. but this implies real stockholders, not “traders” who may only own the stock for days or weeks and don’t give a damn about what the corporation makes or how it acts except as it rises in the stockmarket or drops. there is the failure of the corporate system. most execs know unless they commit nuclear treason on the white house lawn while raping a school bus load of convent girls, the stockholders will never push them or fire them or sue them, and the annual meeting is a farce.

the supreme court decision which takes cognizance of the interests of the corporation to influence political policies that affect its economic future, like which politicians want to beat up on corporations, is not radical historically.

i don’t like or trust large entities, whether they are corporations, governments or just the ncaa. but i can see if one is oriented to a belief system that the ordinary business world exists to be altruistic, this decision is anathema. i don’t share such a belief system. somebody or something has to make products and money to finance the do-good projects…and support universities with grants and contracts. ugh. reality rears its benighted head.

bob

—–Original Message—–
From: Jan Straathof
To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Sent: Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:26 am
Subject: Are corporations people ?

Dear All,

I recently heard the US Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people,
i.a. implying entitlement to First Amendment rights and protection.

I was wondering on what philosophical grounds this decision was based. At first
thought it seems to me a grotesque fallacy to equate people with corporations.

Don’t they belong to completely different (ontological) categories ?

yours,
Jan

Posted on Sunday, February 7th, 2010 at 7:00 am
rss 2.0 | trackback