Tim4change's Open Salon Blog

Isn't "Move to Amend" a Conservative Idea?

Wed, 16 May 2012 18:05:57 -0400

This is an argument between friends - the conservative says "Move to Amend" is a Progressive idea. The Liberal says it is a "Conservative" one. Yours truly is the Liberal and author.

Why would limiting the “rights” of corporations to pour unlimited and unaccountable $$s into political action be “conservative?”

First we have to think about what a corporation is. It is a legal fiction, a construct to allow the human owners of the corporation to limit their liability in regards to the action it takes. This was a sensible idea when corporations were formed and given these protections of limited liability for fixed actions (say, digging a canal) for fixed periods of time (usually 20 years, with charters renewable or revocable by the State of incorporation). At that time, corporations still had to show a net public good to have their charters granted and/or renewed.

But in the wake of Standard Oil of Ohio getting states to bid on its domicile to avoid antitrust issues we lost the protection from corporations because New Jersey outbid everyone else to house Mr Rockefeller’s company (well, almost, but Delaware was late to the game with the better bid).

So what do we have now? A regulatory scheme that no longer wields the threat of disincorporation (or “death” if you want to take the legal fiction of personhood to its logical conclusion). Continued limitation of liability for actions taken not in the public interest. Legal precedence that supports the highest duty of a corporation to make profit for its shareholders. Ever increasing fractionalization (public trading) of the ownership of any corporation which creates greater anonymity for the beneficiaries of corporate actions in pursuit of profits.

To the idea of amending the Constitution to remove the fiction that a corporation is a “person” which includes rights beyond ownership of property; Why would this be a “conservative” view?

Well, to be conservative usually means to hold to forms, practices and patterns that are time-tested, that is to say they’ve been around a while and the conservative would rather not change them (for any number of reasons). But if a corporation is not today what it was yesterday then by definition we have “liberalized” our view of what a corporation is. In this liberalization, we have allowed things that do not have a life span (as a human would), cannot face the same consequences for action that a human person does, and can amass huge amounts of capital (the source of all power in a capitalistic society) which is then used to continue its greatest fiduciary responsibility - that of making even more capital for its owners – to operate in ways that do not benefit the society that allowed its creation in the first place!

I agree with you that the New York Times is a corporation that given the First Amendment has power that Monsanto (for example) does not if the capital of Monsanto in not allowed to be considered “speech.” But 2 things here: 1) As we’ve agreed before, the First Amendment specifically calls out “freedom of the press” and, 2) Due to liberalization of the laws regarding how corporations act within the society that creates and regulates them, we have decoupled corporate entities from any real “human” consequence. Civil penalties may be similar, if you can get a multi-billion dollar corporation to the point where it might actually pay them (see Exxon Valdez for example).

But when you have an unending lifespan and pockets deeper than any one person or government that would take you to task, what is the real penalty? You spend cash defending yourself until all other litigants are dead or the government runs out of money to try you, and then you write off that cash on your taxes as business expense, penalizing the people whose very government allowed you to exist and who will now have to cover that tax loss somewhere! And I don’t think I have to say anything about penalties for criminal actions. For every Bernie Madoff (who is only in prison because he admitted his crimes to protect his family) there are a thousand Tony Haywards walking free.

To circle back to my original point, it seems to me to be a conservative idea to return to the concept that we allow corporations to exist, with all their limitations on liability if and only if they serve the society that authorizes them in the first place. This was the idea of the Founders; as you’ve heard me say elsewhere Jefferson wanted “Freedom from Corporations” to be part of the Bill of Rights! And Bostonians began the Revolution by not a tax protest against higher taxes as the Tea Party claims, but by attacking a Corporation’s property because that corporation was acting in a predatory manner (controlling imports with special tax breaks for itself that harmed local trades).

Therefore, it is the “liberalization” of the legal and regulatory structure that brings us to a point where humans become subservient of their Frankensteinian creations. So to take a “conservative” view, we should amend our laws to make it clear that we will be served by the corporate structure and not the other way around.

Ps – given that the SC never ruled that corporations were entitled to personhood and that only occurs in headnotes to Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific this shouldn’t even be a “liberal vs conservative” argument. It should simply be one of common sense! But that’s a whole ‘nother argument.

Pps – You used progressive and conservative in your email to me. It isn’t really progressive thought that has allowed the change in practice regarding corporations, so I had to use the word liberalization as a close synonym for what I was trying to compare to conservative. To me this whole argument isn’t liberal v conservative, but more like what you say, progressive v conservative. What we have now are conservatives who want to keep the forms of the last 140 years since Santa Clara but ignore the 100 years that preceded that case. This is because the conservative politicians today are more clearly described as corporatist while the progressives are derided as socialist.

The Irony of Peace

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:01:46 -0500

Life is full of little ironies, isn’t it? I see them everywhere and often they give life some real interest and depth. For instance, isn't it curious to you that the creator of dynamite, a real leap forward in man's ability to wreak havoc on his fellow man and his environment should lend his name and the wealth that discovery created to the most coveted Peace Prize?

I’d like to share with you today’s irony so that you too may ponder it as I am.

Today there will be a State Dinner at the White House. The President of the United States is according the highest honor that the country can give to a visiting head of state. When you invite someone important over for dinner, they should be treated as an honored guest, I have no problem with that. Break out the good china (pun intended).

But this is what I keep thinking about today. Tonight, the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate is holding a dinner to provide the highest honor for the man who is keeping the 2010 Nobel Peace Laureate under house arrest. And the reason for the 2010 winner's arrest is that he is a peace activist.

Life sure takes some funny twists, doesn’t it?

A very merry christmas to all!

Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:12:09 -0500

A

BC

DEF

GHIJ

KMNOP

QRSTUVW

Sacrifice, Part II

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:12:48 -0500

Some time ago I posted a musing on whether or not it was time to think about the word “sacrifice” again. In the interim, I have not only become more certain that it is, I have noted the incredible dearth of the political types being willing to address the issue.

A few weeks ago millions of people turned out to vote for one thing – an end to the tyranny of debt. I know many of you will say I am either being simplistic in my assessment or downright ignorant of the real forces. You might even correctly point out that I have been decrying Citizens United V. FEC since August of 2009 so why the weak reading of the election? I agree, but allow me this little indulgence. I stand by my first comment based upon what people tell themselves regarding their votes, and I doubt you will find many who will tell you they just don’t want to see a black family in the White House.

So if the national debt is the reason for the ouster of many a Democrat and the installation of increasingly myopic Republicans I think it is fair to ask “How will we trim the debt?” Really, how do we get the debt to go down, how do we lighten the tax burden on the overtaxed, how do we encourage productivity and what happens if we don’t do these things?

Let’s take a 30,000 foot view of where we are.

(http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

As you can see it takes but a few short moments for the counter to move by a million dollars. Perhaps not much, you say, in this age of trillion dollar debts (that’s a million million if you’re keeping score), but in my family accounts, it is substantial. This little counter has to stop before we can hope to reverse it. And reverse it we must, because as they say in DC, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon its real money we’re talking about.

So even though the vote has been taken (I actually started this post late November) and the decision has been set in stone, the issue hasn’t changed. We need to stop spending money we don’t have at levels we can’t support over the (not so very) long run. We need to put more money in the government coffers and get the government to spend less of what we put there. How do we do this?

First, increase receipts by the government. This must include more than just personal income taxes, although that’s a given. Sorry folks, but the “tax cut” ~ really just a continuation of a temporary tax holiday ~ has to end. I know that won’t happen for two years yet, but start thinking about it now. And before some right winger comments here (yeah right like I ever get read by those types!) know that my income as a business owner is generally high enough that I pay into the top brackets. But an even better way to speedily increase receipts would be to end or at least modify the disasterous “free trade” policies which only benefit the investing class. And please don’t tell me we all benefit by cheaper prices at Wal-Mart. If you still drink that kool-aid there ain’t nothin’ I can do for you. Do you realize that from the birth of this nation all the way through the start of WWII the majority of the cost of government was paid for by tariffs? Make trade fair and not free and the combination of these two things will go a long way towards getting the monkey off our grandchildren’s backs.

Next, there has to be a cut in spending. Everything, and I mean everything has to be on the table. Here is where sacrifice becomes the watchword of the day. We do have to cut entitlements. There is no choice here, because we spent this money for our benefit (or at least for people who are currently alives benefit). I don’t want to see a lessening in Medicare or Social Security but the sooner we face up to the fact that we are seriously tattooed drunken sailors the sooner we will dry out and get back to the business of sailing the ship of state. We have to make real cuts in current and future benefits.

Most importantly, we must rethink Empire. We must pull back from military bases in 200 countries around the world. If we think that threatens our security we need to rethink security. A generation of killing Palestinians has not made the Israelis less hated. But a generation of the Marshall plan made a much more prosperous world where being American in a foreign country only meant you were mocked for the way you dressed. Aid in the form of food and technology is much more effective at turning hearts in a positive direction than drones blasting wedding parties.

I will post more on this subject in the coming months. I am only hoping to start a debate now and perhaps hear a few fresh ideas. This is really a post from 30,000 feet. As we zoom in we will find ourselves facing the “blue tarp blues” but we will also see opportunities that one can’t see this far up. But if you think just taxes or just spending cuts or just technology will make a better country for your grandchildren please don’t bother to comment. I won’t delete you if you do, but you’ll just be telling everyone how little effort you are willing to make to solve the one crisis around which all other crises of our day revolve.

Why wait?

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:11:10 -0400

“It’s laissez-faire until you get into deep shit” said John Gutfreund, the man who took Saloman Bros. public. This simple act of taking a (very special kind of) private company public back in the mid-go-go-go 80’s began a series of events that culminated in the subprime crash of 2007[1]. Actions have long tails, and we can’t always see what an event today will turn into tomorrow. As I listen to pundits speak now about how yesterday’s election may be a good thing, as it means Obama will have a congressional foil, I realize (again) just how little the “newspeople” know or care about issues and how far from reality any present predictions may end up.

Today we face the prospect of a resurgent Republican Party taking the reins of government, or maybe I should say taking the legislative agenda by the balls. The “People’s House” which has subpoena power that has lain dormant for the last two years is now in the hands of those whose focused desire is to see “Obama fail,”[2] people whose governing philosophy is to ensure Obama is a one-term president[3].

You don’t really think there will be bi-partisan cooperation on anything that doesn’t start with “We must investigate . . .” do you? The Republicorp doesn’t have to repeal health insurance reform to flex their muscles just like they never really had to pass an anti-abortion law. They don’t even have to pass a single thing through Congress between now and November 2012. They only have to obstruct, obfuscate and organize their Koch-snorting bedfellows into a machine that propagates the anger and fear they have been stoking since 9/11.

And if they do this well, is the Presidency the reward they are after? Yes and no. Yes in that in order to get to the real enchilada, they need the presidency. In fact, it really won’t matter which one gets it, Palin (I just threw up a little in the back of my mouth) Romney (ok, now I feel greasy all over) or (god-forbid) Jeb Bush. Hell, they could even support Susan Collins. Because the no part of the answer is this ~ from 2012 to 2016 there could be as many as two right wingers on the Supreme Court stepping down. Scalia and Kennedy will be 76 at the election. Sorry to tell you, Thomas will only be 64. But then there is also Ginsburg (79) and Breyer (74) to worry about. So whoever wins in ’12 is in the cat-bird’s seat in terms of codifying either progressive, middle of the road, or right wing activism for generations to come.

This is my little attempt at scaring you. I am doing this so I have company (I worry about my grandchildren every day and what they will inherit from us) and so that we have time to focus our fear into actions. Lefties have a tendency to sit in the corner, lick their wounds and get therapy. No time for that, folks. After all, it’s laissez-faire until you get into deep shit. Why wait?

[1] Michael Lewis – “The Big Short, Inside the Doomsday Machine” W W Norton 2010

[2] Limbaugh, 1/16/09

[3] Sen. McConnell, interview in The National Journal