Skip to main content

View Diary: If corporations have the same rights as people, shouldn't they put do death when they kill people? (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because corporations are artificial bodies, (6+ / 0-)

    like the federal government and all the states, its duties and obligations and operations are supposed to be clearly specified in their charter ahead of time. Then, when the organization is found to be in non-compliance, it can be terminated. What has been lacking is the will to enforce, largely because the officers in our governmental corporations like having the other corporations at their beck and call and to do their dirty work (keeping them in power) for them. Also, there's the problem of the claim to privacy and proprietary information and patent rights which enable corporations to hide what they are up to. If there are no inspections and no complaints, then law enforcement has nothing to go on. Dodd-Frank addressed that somewhat in regards to the banks, which are now obligated to file regular reports. Previously, it was difficult for regulators to get a look at their books unless some individual was caught in flagrante delictu. It is, no doubt, hoped that the Consumer Protection Bureau will serve as a platform for receiving complaints about abuses. But, again, the system is not automatic. Citizens have to file complaints. Just writing a letter to the editor is not enough.

    by hannah on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:49:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  An oversight then? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Just because they didn't put "Don't Kill People" in their corporate charter, there's nothing to be done?

      Do they really have to write that in? I would have thought it was a given...

      Reality has a well-known liberal bias -- Stephen Colbert

      by ItsaMathJoke on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:36:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, the law as it affects individuals (0+ / 0-)

        presumes that the majority of behaviors or actions are good. So, it enumerates the small percentage that are bad and issues prohibitions, which do not, by the way, prevent the bad but merely set the predicate for punishment or restraint after the fact.
        Corporate bodies are governed by a different regimen. They are, supposedly, limited by a discreet set of duties and obligations they are tasked with carrying out. It's a positive regimen -- do this and that and nothing more. The amendments to the Constitution, IMHO, upset that basic pattern by appending prohibitions, which then led to the argument that whatever isn't prohibited is permitted. And that's what we are suffering under now. That and the theory that the intent to protect overrides all other limits.  That is, since the President and his associates are not above the law under ordinary circumstances, in the interest of protecting the nation (providing for national security) they are. That's why the AUMF hasn't been repealed. That's the ticket to dictatorship. In the name of securing the nation (an amorphous entity that can't be secured) all individual rights can be ignored. That's the theory and they're going to stick to it because in a hierarchy, which is what the Cons insist on having, someone's authority has to be absolute. The Commander in Chief is important because he's got lots of chiefs under him.

        If a person is committed to absolute rule, the U.S. Constitution is an onerous document because it sets positive limits. Prohibitions, in general, are much less restrictive than obligations and duties. Prohibitions are easy to evade by simply changing the verbiage. Just consider all the permutations of "thou shalt not kill" that can be achieved by the reclassification to homicide, aggravated assault, execution, capital punishment, manslaughter, intentional or accidental murder, etc.

        by hannah on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:53:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site