US Congress by and for the people

Posted Jan 27, 2006 9:45 UTC (Fri) by ncm (guest, #165)
In reply to: US Congress by and for the people by giraffedata
Parent article: Ugly legislation in the U.S.

No. A corporation is a "legal person" distinct from the "biological persons" that are used as components. (I would say "natural persons", except that corporations have been those, too, since the '20s.) If Ted Turner, in his role as officer of his corporation, acts against the interest of the other stockholders, or in violation of the corporate charter, he can be held liable, even criminally, whatever his compunctions or lack of same.

It's perfectly normal for a corporate officer to feel obliged to do something on behalf of the corporation that he or she would do very differently if not so constrained -- and even to do something personally repugnant. (E.g. polluting; using deep-pocket legal tactics against public-interest groups or negligence victims; lobbying for unjust laws.)

The myth that corporations are just groups of people acting in concert is convenient for the maintenance of corporate power, but it has been well over a century since it had any validity. Corporations exercise privileges far beyond anything even an untypically wealthy citizens can draw upon.

US Congress by and for the people

Posted Jan 27, 2006 17:30 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

You start off with "No," and then proceed to say a bunch of stuff completely consistent with what I said -- corporations are owned and operated by people. "No" should be followed by some kind of contradiction.

The reason my point is relevant is that the previous commenter suggests Congress acts for the benefit of corporations instead of for people, presumably by passing laws that give corporate copyright owners such as Disney more control over how people use the copyright material. I'm pointing out that when Disney's profits go up, people (biological) become richer. Often, it is at the expense of other people, but that doesn't mean you can accuse Congress of not acting for people at all.

The various things you point out about how corporations work don't seem to apply to the issue of whether or not Congress acts to benefit people.

I think if one wants to make a cynical accusation about what motivates Congress, one should leave corporations out of it and say Congress acts for wealthy people and against poor people. At least that wouldn't be invalid on its face. One might be able to argue that Disney's profits wind up mostly in the pockets of wealthy employees and shareholders.