The State - Fox or Guard Dog

[Hogeye]

Barbara> You buy, train, and feed a dog to protect your chickens. If the dog starts killing chickens, your response may or may not be to shoot the dog (probably will be), but it most certainly won't be to give the chickens to the fox. You get another, better trained, dog - and keep a closer eye on him.

Hogeye> The fox and hen-house thing is a very good analogy to government. Statists put a fox in charge of protecting the hen-house, and seem surprised when the fox eats the chickens, even though it is in the nature of the fox to do so. Statists refuse to see the nature of foxes, so their "solution" is to get another fox, perhaps of a different color. Then they're surprised that the Tweedledee fox is just as hungry as Tweedledum.

Barbara> The fox v. guard dog (that will go bad if not watched) is the core difference in the way Hogeye and I (and hopefully a whole lot of others) see government. Hogeye sees government as the former, I see government as the latter.

That's a fair synopsis, Barbara. It's up to each person to look at the facts, and decide whether State power can be successfully "bound" by doctrines such as divine right of kings, or constitutionalism, or majoritarianism, or whatever.

"The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape in any form they please." - Thomas Jefferson

My contention is that States have a natural tendency to grow in power, eventually becoming tyrannical. The history of the US is an excellent example, as it started most innocuously as a panarchist federation, and has inevitably grown over time into the world's sole remaining super-empire. Or in our analogy, it started out as a cute little baby fox, and grew into a mean beast. This growth of statist power idea is not new:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788.

"[We] should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this as in the country from which we derive our origin will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic and will be alike influenced by the same causes." - Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia

I see the uncontrolled mega-corporations as the fox, and must rely on my government/guard dog to protect me from them.

I see bad corporations as creatures of the State, generally only exisiting at all by statist legal privilege. The only power, sans State, that a corporation has is to entice me to trade value for value. I have never been taxed by a corporation, never been kidnapped by a corporation, never been imprisoned by a corporation, and never been regulated by a corporation. The State has done all these things. My total lifetime losses accrued from robbery by State has been over a thousand times that stolen by private criminals. I don't recall ever being robbed by a corporation. To me it's a no-brainer which is more dangerous.

That said, I need to point out that I share many of the same criticisms of corporations as Barbara. We agree that corporations get special legal privileges. We agree that they often control regulatory agencies, buy legislation, and so on. We agree that (some) corporations buy power, and utilize the State for malevolent purposes. Where we differ is in our prescription. I favor reducing the power of the State so they the rulers have no favors to sell, believing the root cause of this corruption is the existence of such political power combined with human nature. Barbara (IMU) believes that it is corporations which corrupt the State, and that if only corporations would be "put down," the problem of politicians selling power would pretty much go away. (I contend that other special interests would step in as buyers.)

There may be another secondary disagreement on extent of corporate power-buying. Barbara seems to portray virtually all corporations as power-buyers, while I try to make a distinction between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. I.e. I distinguish between the Halliberton's and Apples, the Boeings and Wal-Marts. I like to look at whether a particular corporation exists because it is providing things people want, or because of government privilege and contracts. Some people think that I support corporations in general because of this, but in reality I support freedom of trade and freedom of association for all, including corporations, much like a civil liberties lawyer may defend a nazi or racist or theist because he supports freedom of speech.

So my version of our increasingly stretched analogy would be: the State is the mean, destructive, rabies-carrying fox; corporations are dogs, some of which play with the fox and catch rabies from it. Without the rabid fox around, the dogs would not be catching rabies and biting people. The dogs which stay away from the "friendly" fox are okay.

"The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that ‘the best government is that which governs least,’ and that which governs least is no government at all." - Benjamin Tucker

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

You have been regulated by corporations via the legislation submitted on their behalf (and frequently of their own writing). You may not have been taxed directly by corporations, but your tax dollars go into their coffers. Should you be imprisoned on drug charges, the law you "broke" is one created to benefit the drug corporations.

Jefferson was writing about the natural tendency of government and human beings. This is why the constitution is written to have elections at regular intervals - an opportunity every few years to "throw the bums out" - as a peaceful revolution overthrowing corruption. Liberty yields because most people do not realize what they are giving up (the MCA is an unfortunately-passed case in point - very few people heard of it at all and most of the ones who did think it has something to do with W being able to torture information from "terrorists"), being "too busy" with their own lives to check things out.

Growth of government and megacorporations is a positive feedback loop. (Unfortunately, positive feedback loops increase a given trend until it self-destructs.) As each one gains power, it increases the power of the other. Unless and until the MCA (followed by the "martial law" rider on the latest Defense budget, then the Patriot Act) gets repealed or overturned, we live in the 21st century version of Mussolini's Italy. It took a nasty war to get rid of Mussolini, but once they got him out of power, they killed him and hung his body in public - and voted in communism, which didn't work either. Hopefully it will not take that for us.

We cannot reduce the power of the megacorporations until we get a judiciary willing to stand by the 1880s ruling that corporations are NOT a person and not entitled to the rights thereof. We cannot reduce size and scope of government until the corporations no longer have control of the media. Until we reach the last resort (violence should always be the last resort), I will continue to work within the system, hoping for the best (for my grandsons' sake), or at least not the worst. I won't be surprised if we get the worst - and global warming (which Hogeye apparently doesn't believe in) will probably escalate the rapidity with which we get whatever we get - especially if it is the worst.

[Hogeye]

You have been regulated by corporations via the legislation submitted on their behalf (and frequently of their own writing). You may not have been taxed directly by corporations, but your tax dollars go into their coffers.

"Via" and "directly" being key words here; such regulation and plunder being possible only due to the existence of State. It would be frivolous for me to claim that you, Barbara, are taxing me since you voted for (e.g.) the jail tax. (The one that passed a couple years ago to fund the new jail in Fayetteville.) Similarly, it would be frivolous for you to claim that corporations tax me when they support a tax law that passes. Now, if you say that corporation X condoned or approved a tax, that's different. But the bottom line is that the institution that taxes is the State (or one of its agencies or sub-entities.)

Jefferson was writing about the natural tendency of government and human beings. This is why the constitution is written to have elections at regular intervals...

Right. I agree with all this. But is the Con actually effective in limiting the State? I don't think so - and neither did Jefferson. He thought that violent insurrection every 20 years or so was necessary. When people become so wimpy and subservient that they will not take up arms against the State, liberty is dying or dead.

Growth of government and megacorporations is a positive feedback loop. (Unfortunately, positive feedback loops increase a given trend until it self-destructs.)

I agree, though I would say "special interests" rather than "megacorporations." While I agree that some megacorporations use the State (buy power and privilege from the State), and I agree that corporations are probably the major buyers of power today, I certainly don't think they are the only buyers of power.

We cannot reduce the power of the megacorporations until we get a judiciary willing to stand by the 1880s ruling that corporations are NOT a person and not entitled to the rights thereof.

I don't buy this "magic bullet" solution. In fact, I think the fictional personhood legal convention is rather inconsequential - ending it would not significantly decrease the ability of corporations to buy power from the State. It may slightly increase the likelihood of suing or convicting corporate management in certain cases, but they are already subject to such. Didn't some of the Enron guys get convicted lately? Will a slightly enhanced chance of convicting management of breaking statist law prevent Haliberton from getting contracts, or stop the military from buying munitions from Grumann or Boeing? Not a bit. I just don't see how fictional personhood effects the main problem - buying privilege from State.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The fictional personhood protects corporations "freedom of speech" to both donate large campaign sums and to air lies on behalf of candidates and proposals. The courts ruled Faux News can knowingly broadcast lies - even the direct opposite of reality in whatever they are broadcasting - because of their free speech rights. Corporations can outspend and outlast human beings in court cases - even if periodically a high-profile corporate personage (Ken Lay, for example) gets jailed, the corporation itself isn't really effected. Enron still exists, its corporate charter has not been revoked, they haven't been required to repay the shafted "grannies" in CA, nor pay reparations to Gray Davis for the energy scam that led to his recall. The "Fairness Doctrine" that limited the ability of the MSM to broadcast propaganda under the heading of news was overthrown based on the concept of "free speech rights" for corporations. (Yes, I know it took multiple legislative sessions to get us to the point we are now - and most of them were actually signed by Dem presidents who then suffered from the results of turning loose corporate attack dogs.)

As to being taxed or not taxed by corporations - they get more money from me than the government does and most of that money is not for "value received" but for swelling an already obese corporate income - the word itself guarantees that the government taxes me directly and corporations don't. Taxes are by definition money that goes to government for whatever reason and from whatever source. It's like the anti-concervationists who will tell you there are more national forests now than when Columbus reached America. Sounds good and convinces people who have problems with logical and thinking things out - of course there are more national forests than when Columbus got here. When Columbus got here there was no "nation" (as in U.S.A) and therefore no national forests.

[Hogeye]

Barbara, freedom of speech allows anyone to lie, fictional or real. And Enron was affected - it's going out of business. Enron.com's site says "Enron is in the midst of liquidating its remaining operations and distributing its assets to its creditors." Gray Davis deserved to be canned for his gross failure to deregulate. The so-called deregulation left price controls in place, and prohibited energy providers from making futures contracts to lock in cheaper prices. Davis' half-assed deregulation left the Cal energy market ripe for exploitation. Cf The Myth of Energy Deregulation. And surely you don't support the "Fairness Doctrine", which forced news providers to publish opinions repugnant to them. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to broadcast/publish, just as freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate. Please don't support violations of rights just because some groups use their rights in ways you don't like. Freedom of speech means nothing if it is denied to pornographers, nazis, and corporations.

Taxes are robbery by government. Legal robbery. No corporation has ever robbed me. Any money I give to corporations has been by consent, because I wanted some good that I valued more than the money I gave in exchange. Seriously, have you ever been robbed by a corporation?

I've never heard that absurd claim about national forests. I have heard the claim that there are more deer now than in 1800. Which may be true since a lot of forests have been cut, making more grassland deer habitat.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Freedom of speech allows any PERSON to lie (I wish we had better libel laws). Corporations prior to personhood could be held to a "higher" standard. Prior to personhood, any group wishing the protection of encorporating had to prove that it was for the good of the greater populace and not just a "get out of jail free" card for the encorporators - and they had to re-prove that every 5 years or so. Otherwise the "CEOs" were personally and financially responsible for the company's behavior. History has shown that a carrot for the poor and a stick for the rich leads to an equitable society. Personhood for corporations removed the stick and gave the carrot to the rich.

[Hogeye]

Freedom of speech allows persons, individually or collectively, to lie. The chess club, FayFreethinkers, or Wal-Mart may lie on their web pages or other publicity organs. I don't see any justification for discriminating against some groups regarding speech.

Prior to personhood, any group wishing the protection of incorporating had to prove that it was for the good of the greater populace and not just a "get out of jail free" card for the incorporators...

I don't understand what "protection" you refer to here. Are you referring to limited liability? If so, isn't that the issue, rather than the abrogation of free speech to certain collections of people?

Originally, "corporation" referred to government endeavors (e.g. road or dam building) or govt monopolies (e.g. Hudson Bay Co., East India Co.), not to private endeavors. Thus, it made some sense for governments to oversee their endeavors and get their cut from monopolies. The modern corporation, however, is not a government entity - it is simply an association (like a partnership or a club) that happens to use joint stock ownership. CEO's and management are responsible for criminal behavior (e.g. fraud) and negligent behavior already - their fictional personhood does not protect them. It is simply a convention convenient in some legal actions. I.e. instead of listing every single shareholder in an action, you can simply refer to Corp. X.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

A modern corporation, as those in the past, is an organization with limited liability for the actions of the directors. This protection so beloved of CEOs was considered to be so great a privilege that to incorporate a group had to prove such incorporation was beneficial to the public - and every 5 years or so they had to prove that continued incorporation was in the public interest. Until that was thrown over, we did not have CEOs getting multi-million dollar bonuses in years when the business lost money, nor did we have CEOs "earning" 4000x what the workers in the business earn. With exceeding rare exceptions, corporations are now above the law in many regards, claiming freedoms that were written for flesh & blood persons.

Freedom of speech allows persons to lie, but under certain circumstances the "greater good" allows penalties for such lies. Any organization other than a corporation person that presents lies harming the public can be stopped. But Faux News, claiming personhood and freedom of speech rights, can tell viewers any lie they wish and the courts have agreed with them, even though those bald-faced lies have changed the results of more than one election.

[Hogeye]

Okay, so now you seem to be saying that limited liability is the problem, not fictional personhood. Question (consistency check): Do you oppose limited liability for home mortgages, too? I.e. generally the borrower's liability is limited to the house - if the house burns down or loses value, at most he may lose the house; he is not hounded for the original value of the loan.

Freedom of speech allows persons to lie, but under certain circumstances the "greater good" allows penalties for such lies. Any organization other than a corporation person that presents lies harming the public can be stopped.

You are mistaken about the nature of "penalties" for lies. Freedom of speech says that one cannot be prevented ahead of time from speaking, not that there are no consequences. In a just legal system, penalties accrue not because of some vague reference to "the greater good" (a god I don't believe in BTW, since interpersonal comparison of utility is not valid). Penalties are due to transfers of value connected with some lie. If I say that I'll give you a DVD if you give me $5, and you give me $5 but I don't give you the DVD, than that is actionable - I owe you compensation. But if I say I'll give you a DVD for free, and then don't, that is not actionable. An advertisment is like the latter; since you have not paid them anything to get "the truth", you are not entitled to compensation. And of course, you are not entitled to violate their freedom of speech. I can't believe that you favor censorship of Faux News! The cure for lies or false info is more free speech. Might I suggest you quit watching Faux News and switch to LewRockwell.com and Antiwar.com?

But Faux News, claiming personhood and freedom of speech rights, can tell viewers any lie they wish and the courts have agreed with them...

Good! It's a good thing that individuals and groups still have some degree of free speech. This ruling applies to you and me just as much as it applies to Faux News. It's the cases against pornographers, Nazis, and warmongers that demonstrate recognition of free speech. Politically correct blather by respected folks is not generally challenged in court.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

It is the combination of limited liability with rights of personhood that causes the problems. One or the other isn't too big of a problem to keep a person or other entity from taking over everything to the detriment of everyone else.

Hogeye, there are some institutions - news being high on the list - that can't/shouldn't be permitted to get away with lies. We are not talking about their programming or their advertising (which is, by definition, a series of plausible lies), but their news programs. News is how people get information they need to make decisions, both for voting and in their daily lives. If Fox News tells you that a certain area where a chemical spill has occurred is safe, it damn well better be telling the truth. Ditto e coli contamination in packaged spinach. (a recent case in point - they reported the contamination, then said it was in the organic products. The organic products were not contaminated, but the big name producers - Dole among others - both had contaminated products and a real desire to damage their organic competitors.) It is the claim of personhood that allows them the free-speech right to lie on behalf of their sponsors/corporate owners and to the detriment of their viewers. As a company and not a person, their license could have been pulled for that type of infraction.

[Hogeye]

It is the claim of personhood that allows them the free-speech right to lie on behalf of their sponsors/corporate owners and to the detriment of their viewers.

No - any group, including those without fictional personhood, is allowed to lie like that and is protected by free speech. There is nothing special in this regard for corporations. It applies to chess clubs and freethinker groups as well.

Hogeye, there are some institutions - news being high on the list - that can't/shouldn't be permitted to get away with lies.

As a civil libertarian and former card-carrying member of the ACLU, I vehemently disagree. Free speech is for all individuals and groups. It is dangerous to arbitrarily deny certain groups this right. The answer for such lies is more free speech - and pluralism - not censorship.

Now if you're talking criminal negligence or fraud, then everyone, individual or club or partnership or corporation, is subject to penalty. Again, there is no special privilege for corporations.

As a company and not a person, their license could have been pulled for that type of infraction.

The issues of government ownership of broadcast airwaves and regulation of cable are another matter. I think airwaves should be privately owned, and that there should be zero government regulation of airwaves or cable. I would say the excessive influence of Fox is a direct result of the nationalization of airwaves in 1927, and the consequent statist control over communications. But that's another thread.