Just one simple question.

[elizquierdista]

Where in the constitution does it say that the society must be capitalistic one?

[vox]

I don't believe that it does.

However, right in the preamble we find this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Personally, I don't think they're doing such a good job of it.

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

mostly in amendments IV and V

[Nateddi]

Quote: from The US Constitution

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



In proper context, all these rights do is protect individuals from incrimination, not corporations from redistribution.

Even if something like the last sentance hints at capitalism; the bill of rights was writtne before the industrial revolution, and therefore the founding fathers could not have predicted the tremendous social change that modern capitalism will bring.

"or shall private property be taken for public use" When socialists want to take away HMOs durign a reform of healthcare, it can be argued that we are taking away someones property for public use. When power plants are seized and owned non-profitally, - same thign.

However, there was no electricity, and no health system during the writting of the constitution. I am sure that if the government wishes to take over a nice person's house to use as a city hall, thats unconstitutional. I cannot see a scenario which Jefferson had in mind which would be protected under the 5th ammendment, that is closely related to what socialists want to do.

(Edited by Nateddi at 3:46 am on April 28, 2002)

[elizquierdista]

These ammendments merely "protect" one's rights, and in current law there are loopholes to both ammendments. And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't ammendments merely additions to the constitution? Aren't they there in an attempt to correct possible flaws?

Isn't the general welfare always held above the individual, even in the constitution?

[queen of diamonds]

well, i don't think anywhere in the constitution it actually says "we must be a capitalist society", but it's clear that it focuses a lot on the individual rather than the collective group, which would indicate that it was designed for a capitalist, not a socialist society

[Dan Majerle]

maybe like the French constitution it says one has the right to property, free enterprise, etc. All capitalist elements.

[Ernest Everhard]

Unlike the original french constitution of 1793, the US constitution omitted all references to the commonwealth and focused on individual rights.

[elizquierdista]

All I'm simply trying to imply is that the great minds (the founders and others) whom focused on the individual had socialistic tendencies. While they focused n the individual rights they emphasized self sacrifice and unity far more.
Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and others.

[vox]

I think that it's important to remember that the Founders never had to deal with the issue of corporations in the way that we do. At that time, corporations were limited legal agreements and had to follow their corporate charter. For example, if a bridge needed to be built, people (well, white men) could form a corporation in order to do it, but once the bridge was completed, the corporation was dissolved (it's corporate charter was no longer valid).

From Our Hidden History (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/CorporateHidden.html):

The corporate charter is an operating license that citizens may give, and likewise, may choose to revoke. Our country's founders had a healthy fear of corporate corruption and limited corporations exclusively to a business role:

*A charter was granted for a limited time.

*Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest — profit for shareholders was the means to that end.

*They could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

*Corporations were terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.

*Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.

*Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.

*Corporations could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

From Adbusters:

"By the middle of the 19th century, the nation's commercial engine was humming, and corporations were becoming an indispensable part of business life. They pushed for and gained extended rights and freedoms in their charters. Then, in a series of landmark decisions, state legislators, one after another, enacted "free incorporation laws" that gave corporations the right to engage in any kind of business they wanted. This was a crucial step in the evolution of the corporate form. Corporations were no longer limited to activities that served the public good, yet they continued to enjoy the extraordinary "limited liability" exemption from investor responsibility that they had historically obtained in the name of public service. During the Civil War, corporations bagged huge profits from procurement contracts. They took advantage of the chaos and corruption of the times to buy judges, legislatures and even presidents. They forced amendments to laws limiting their profits and, in hundreds of cases, won minor legal victories extending their rights and privileges. They had immense political clout. Civil society was reeling, unable to keep up." (Source (http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/corporate/tour/questions/p2q2.html))

But then comes the really big one: in the case Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court granted corporations "personhood," meaning that they have all the rights of an individual. Sixty years after this decision Supreme Court Justice William Douglas claimed that this case was "...Not supported by history, logic, or reason." (Source (http://www.worldmediagroup.net/arie/evil/Santa%20Clara%20County%20vs.%20Southern%20Pacific% 20Railroad/))

Appropriately, corporations gained much power because of that most brutal of human activities: war. In this case, the US Civil War. Though not a Founding Father, Abraham Lincoln is often cited as a great president and elevated to a similar status. Here's what Lincoln had to say about the rise of corporate power:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
— Abraham Lincoln 1865 (Source (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/CorporateHidden.html))

I think that it's clear that the Founding Fathers did not envision a corporate plutocracy for the US. But don't take my word for it, let's see what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
— Thomas Jefferson 1812

It's funny, really. A lot of right-wingers talk about the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. Bork (remember him?) was big on this. If this was really true, and not just a way of masking their true intent, conservative judicial activism, conservative judges would overturn Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. But they don't, and they won't, for their agenda is clear. History shows us that.

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

Quote: from elizquierdista on 8:12 am on April 28, 2002
All I'm simply trying to imply is that the great minds (the founders and others) whom focused on the individual had socialistic tendencies. While they focused n the individual rights they emphasized self sacrifice and unity far more.
Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and others.


thoreau and emerson are hardly on the same boat as hamilton, jefferson and franklin, ideologically or historically.

As for temporary corporate charters, they were the case when the government was granting exclusive rights to provide services, such as a bridge, or a ferry service. But permanent corporations were already in existance, I mean take Lloyds of london, they've been around since teh 1600's. I think vox, that if your search for a pre corporate eden, you'll come up dry.

[vox]

Ernest,

It's a shame that you ridicule a caricature that you attribute to me, for certainly I've never suggested a pre-corporate eden of any kind. Those less charitable than I might call that a straw man argument!

Indeed, rather than accept your contention, I'll rely on actual research and simply point out that Lloyds, while not knowing its corporate history, is not a US company and wasn't at the time of the US Revolution, either. Grade school history texts will show many differences between the newly formed union and England. Two simple ones are the lack of royalty and a constitution. I suppose that the Founders could have used the Magna Carta and created a new king, but they did not.

But I suggest you do your own research on the history of corporations in the US. Perhaps you're right and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps there have been no changes in corporations and corporate charters over the last two and a quarter centuries. What I've read certainly doesn't back up that position, but you're free to do your own research, of course, and write a post about what you find.

vox

[elizquierdista]

vox, thank you for the detailed and thorough research. Hope you and I aren't ever in an argument comrade. You are clearly know what you're talking about and a great researcher.

[Ernest Everhard]

NO vox, you're quite right there's been major changes in corporations and corporate charters over the last 200 years. THe major one is that the forming of such enterprises is not longer limited to men of a certain social and economic status, but can be performed by just about any legally independent individual regardless of race, economic status, or social class.

[Dan Majerle]

Quote: from Ernest Everhard on 8:08 am on April 28, 2002
Unlike the original french constitution of 1793, the US constitution omitted all references to the commonwealth and focused on individual rights.



Correction - the original French constitution was made in 1791 by the National Constituent Assembly.

[Ernest Everhard]

Preface to the Constitution of 1793
(Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen)

National Assembly of France



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The French people, convinced that the forgetfulness of and contempt for the natural rights of man are the sole causes of the misfortunes of the world, have resolved to set forth these sacred and inalienable rights in a solemn declaration, in order that all citizens, being able constantly to compare the acts of the government with the aim of every social institution, may never permit themselves to be oppressed and degraded by tyranny, in order that the people may always have before their eyes the bases of their liberty and their happiness, the magistrate the guide to his duties, the legislator the object of his mission.
Accordingly, in the presence of the Supreme Being, they proclaim the following declaration of the rights of man and citizen.

1. The aim of society is the general welfare.

Government is instituted to guarantee man the enjoyment of his natural and inalienable rights.

2. These rights are equality, liberty, security, and property.

3. All men are equal by nature and before the law.

4. Law is the free and solemn expression of the general will; it is the same for all, whether it protects or punishes; it may order only what is just and useful to society; it may prohibit only what is injurious thereto.

5. All citizens are equally admissible to public office. Free peoples recognize no grounds for preference in their elections other than virtues and talents.

6. Liberty is the power appertaining to man to do whatever is not injurious to the rights of others. It has nature for its principle, justice for its rule, law for its safeguard. Its moral limit lies in this maxim: Do not to others that which you do not wish to be done to you.

7. The right of manifesting ideas and opinions, either through the press or in any other manner, the right of peaceful assembly, and the free exercise of worship may not be forbidden.

The necessity of enunciating these rights implies either the presence or the recent memory of despotism.

8. Security consists of the protection accorded by society to each one of its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property.

9. The law must protect public and individual liberty against the oppression of those who govern.

10. No one is to be accused, arrested, or detained, except in the cases determined by law and according to the forms prescribed thereby. Any citizen, summoned or seized by authority of the law, must obey immediately; he renders himself culpable by resistance.

11. Any act directed against a person, apart from the cases and without the forms determined by law, is arbitrary and tyrannical; if attempt is made to execute such act by force, the person who is the object thereof has the right to resist it by force.

12. Those who incite, dispatch, sign, or execute arbitrary acts, or cause them to be executed, are guilty and must be punished.

13. Since every man is presumed innocent until declared guilty, if his arrest is deemed indispensable, all severity unnecessary for securing his person must be severely curbed by law.

14. No one is to be tried and punished until after having been heard or legally summoned, and except by virtue of a law promulgated prior to the offense. A law that would punish offenses committed before it existed would be tyranny; the retroactive effect of such a law would be a crime.

15. The law is to enact only penalties which are strictly and obviously necessary. Penalties must be proportionate to offenses and useful to society.

16. The right of property is the right appertaining to every citizen to enjoy and dispose at will of his goods, his income, and the product of his labor and skill.

17. No kind of labor, tillage, or commerce may be forbidden the industry of citizens.

18. Every man may contract his services or his time; but he may not sell himself or be sold; his person is not an alienable property. The law does not recognize the status of servant; only a bond of solicitude and acknowledgment may exist between the employee and his employer.

19. No one may be deprived of the least portion of his property without his consent, unless a legally established public necessity requires it, and upon condition of a just and previous indemnity.

20. No tax may be established except for general utility. All citizens have the right to concur in the establishment of taxes, to supervise their use, and to have an account rendered thereof.

21. Public relief is a sacred obligation. Society owes subsistence to unfortunate citizens, either by procuring work for or by providing the means of existence for those unable to work.

22. Education is necessary for everyone. Society must promote with all its power the advancement of public reason, and must place education within reach of all citizens.

23. The social guarantee consists of the effort of all to assure to each the enjoyment and preservation of his rights; this guarantee is based upon national sovereignty.

24. It cannot exist if the limits of public functions are not clearly determined by law, and if the responsibility of all functionaries is not assured.

25. Sovereignty resides in the people; it is one and indivisible, imprescriptible, and inalienable.

26. No portion of the people may exercise the power of the entire people; but every section of the sovereign assembled is to enjoy the right to express its will with complete liberty.

27. Let any individual who would usurp sovereignty be put to death instantly by free men.

28. A people always has the right to review, reform, and amend its constitution. One generation may not subject future generations to its laws.

29. Every citizen has an equal right to concur in the formation of the law and in the selection of its mandataries or agents.

30. Public functions are essentially temporary; they may be considered as neither distinctions nor rewards, but only as duties.

31. Offenses of mandataries and agents of the people must never go unpunished. No one has the right to consider himself more inviolable than others.

32. The right of presenting petitions to the depositaries of public authority may not be forbidden, suspended, or limited under any circumstances.

33. Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of man.

34. There is oppression against the social body when a single one of its members is oppressed. There is oppression against every member when the social body is oppressed.

35. When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people, and for every portion thereof, the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties.


Not to be a dick, but just to prove i was right... I think you're thinking of the declaration of the rights of man which was written in 1789

[vox]

"NO vox, you're quite right there's been major changes in corporations and corporate charters over the last 200 years. THe major one is that the forming of such enterprises is not longer limited to men of a certain social and economic status, but can be performed by just about any legally independent individual regardless of race, economic status, or social class."

Of course I'm right, Ernest, but that's neither here nor there. :)

Something confuses me, however, and I'm hoping that you can shed some light on it. You write that the major change in corporations and corporate charters "is that the forming of such enterprises is not longer limited to men of a certain social and economic status, but can be performed by just about any legally independent individual regardless of race, economic status, or social class."

To my mind, granting corporations personhood is a much larger change, for, regardless of ownership, this grants many rights to corporations that they did not previously have. Indeed, it makes them virtually eternal people, outliving the owner. Or the change in the laws regarding the limited timeframe of corporate charters, which is what allows them to "live" well past any person. Surely, these are profound changes, no?

By what criteria do you deem the change you cite to be greater?

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

whats your point. Corporations can outlive their owners? Not technically, as their "owners" are whoever holds stock in them... In any case I fail to see how this relates to anything.

[vox]

Let me repeat myself:

By what criteria do you deem the change you cite to be greater?

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just curious as to what you mean by "greater"

[vox]

As in "major," in the context of your post. How did you arrive at that conclusion? It seems naive to me, is all, since ownership and/or the founding of a corporation does not govern the corporation, but laws do. That's why I'm asking.

vox

[Astrofro2001]

I truely find this argument amusing. The amendments spoken of were created about 200 years ago. You state specific amendments but i believe that an amendment cannot be changed just a new one added. So before you site specific ones maybe do your research on more current ones which may apply better to the current day. I may be wrong about the ammendment thing, it has been awhile since i learned it, and im too lazy to check my sources:)

[Ernest Everhard]

Quote: from vox on 8:40 pm on April 28, 2002
Ernest,

It's a shame that you ridicule a caricature that you attribute to me, for certainly I've never suggested a pre-corporate eden of any kind. Those less charitable than I might call that a straw man argument!

Indeed, rather than accept your contention, I'll rely on actual research and simply point out that Lloyds, while not knowing its corporate history, is not a US company and wasn't at the time of the US Revolution, either. Grade school history texts will show many differences between the newly formed union and England. Two simple ones are the lack of royalty and a constitution. I suppose that the Founders could have used the Magna Carta and created a new king, but they did not.

But I suggest you do your own research on the history of corporations in the US. Perhaps you're right and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps there have been no changes in corporations and corporate charters over the last two and a quarter centuries. What I've read certainly doesn't back up that position, but you're free to do your own research, of course, and write a post about what you find.

vox



I said "major" to accentuate the pattern of change that you described in your post above.
-You said the founders never had to deal with corporations.
-I said that they did, as there were corporations in their day
-then you said they were of a different character than those found today
-to which I responded that you were right, there's been "great" or "major" changes. Because now the chartering of corporations isn't restricted to the privelaged few, but available to nearly everyone.

So i arrived at the same conclusion you did in the quote above, that there's been major changes over the last 200 years in corporate enterprising.

[vox]

"-You said the founders never had to deal with corporations.
-I said that they did, as there were corporations in their day
-then you said they were of a different character than those found today"

Well, that's not really true, Ernest. Here's what I actually wrote:

"I think that it's important to remember that the Founders never had to deal with the issue of corporations in the way that we do. At that time, corporations were limited legal agreements and had to follow their corporate charter. For example, if a bridge needed to be built, people (well, white men) could form a corporation in order to do it, but once the bridge was completed, the corporation was dissolved (it's corporate charter was no longer valid)."

You seem to have gotten things a bit out of order and a bit incorrect.

You continue:

"-to which I responded that you were right, there's been "great" or "major" changes. Because now the chartering of corporations isn't restricted to the privelaged few, but available to nearly everyone.

"So i arrived at the same conclusion you did in the quote above, that there's been major changes over the last 200 years in corporate enterprising."

Did you? So you're agreeing with me?

I'm not so sure.

You said, "NO vox, you're quite right there's been major changes in corporations and corporate charters over the last 200 years. THe major one is that the forming of such enterprises is not longer limited to men of a certain social and economic status, but can be performed by just about any legally independent individual regardless of race, economic status, or social class."

My question was, and still is, how did you arrive at that conclusion? As I said in my last post, it seems naive to me, for it doesn't address the changes in the legal status of corporations themselves over the last two hundred years, which, in my mind, has had a much greater effect on society as a whole, for reasons I've talked about earlier in this thread.

Thanks,

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

how did i arrive at the conclusion that corporate enterprising isn't judicially restricted by race, gender or class?
I'm really slow, is this the 'conclusion' you're writing of.

well I arrived at this conclusion through an extremely light and cursory browsing of American society. Last I checked institutional racism, sexism, or classism, hell even 'ageism' is illegal these days...

[reagan lives]

Ernest, what vox is getting hung up on is that by you identifying that as "the major" development in corporations, he feels that you somehow slighted his "corporate personhood" business. Why he has seen fit to have a whole page of discussion about your use of the word "major" is beyond me, but that's what he's driving at.

(Edited by reagan lives at 3:05 pm on May 1, 2002)

[Nateddi]

Reagan, a bit off topic.

Would you make it illegal to steal if it could help out the community as a whole? How about making it illegal to kill? I assume by you quoting poncho that you are against taking away personal rights "in some cases" if it helps the commmunity as a whole.

[reagan lives]

Nateddi: read Mill on the difference between Act Utilitariansim and Rule Utilitarianism, he can explain it better than me. But in short, the community as a whole cannot be "helped out" by allowing theivery or murder, no matter how much the specific act in question might benefit the whole. The gains are far outweighed by the negative consequences vis a vis the rule of law.

[Ernest Everhard]

I think, reagan, you capture the essence of mill