Skip to main content

By this point analogies between the American republic and ancient Rome are cliched beyond measure, and usually far from justified.  Americans of any means and demographic, however disadvantaged, enjoy a level of simultaneous liberty and opportunity that the average citizens of Rome at its peak would have considered utopian, and most of the dire threats to freedom appropriately condemned in this day and age were the status quo in the Roman world throughout its history.  However, there is one parallel, stemming from the deepest roots of both republics, suggesting a very real systemic problem with long-term repercussions: Private financing of enormously powerful public functions.


In the Roman Republic (6th - 1st centuries BC), the military was not a standing army funded and regulated by political authority: It consisted of troops organized, financed, equipped, and commanded by wealthy property owners, who could legally do whatever they wished with their legions within the bounds of senatorial authorization.  To command a legion was to be Imperator (dictator) over its soldiers and the territories they conquered - a designation that has given us conceptually related words like "imperative," "imperious," "imperial," "empire," and "emperor."  

Once unleashed by the Senate on an enemy nation, a legion was virtually an independent totalitarian state in motion.  The soldiers had no rights, and the generals no limits on their arbitrary will but what was expedient to maintain morale and unity among subordinates - and even that small restraint was nonexistent in their treatment of conquered peoples.  But there were cultural, religious, and patriotic motives that kept the generals of the early and middle republic in check: First, war, though frequent enough, was not perpetual, so the opportunities for aggrandizement were limited to the emergence of real external threats.  

Second, the aristocratic Romans were still very much culturally agrarian, and far more concerned with defending their property and gaining social status among their countrymen than imposing their will on society.  Third (and this becomes very significant in the later republic), their private wealth was still small enough relative to the general condition of society that they were less inclined to confuse public and private interests.  And both as a result and a reinforcing cause of these factors, powerful Romans sincerely believed their city and its laws to be sacred, and its political sanctity protected by the threat of divine vengeance against military treason.

But with each new external threat, the extent of territory and wealth under the direct control of military governors expanded.  The distances involved made it necessary that a general could arbitrarily extend his conquests as he saw fit without additional permission from the Senate, since it might take weeks for an inquiry and response to make the round-trip between the camp and Rome.  It came to be that Rome was a vulnerable, virtually undefended city surrounded by the giant, looming hulks of its own creation - legions with their own insular cultures, their own rulers, and a badly diminished sense of accountability to the Senate due to long years of operational isolation.  

What had originally been citizen-soldiers who defended their country and then returned home became professionals - members of a special class who lived most of their lives in the camp, knew only the politics of obedience and subtle treachery, and experienced economics primarily as pillage in proportion to rank: They learned nothing other than how to make other people obey them, and how to clandestinely sabotage leaders they disliked without ever engaging in the open discourses of democracy.  Every legion was a seedling of the dictatorship and monarchy that Rome would become.  

As a result of this growing insularity, only one necessity guided the decisions of a Roman general: Providing enough action and spoils to keep his troops occupied and obedient - otherwise, the general himself would have to pay them out of his own holdings to avoid mass-desertion and political ruin.  In this fact we see the worst of both worlds: Both freedom and accountability were absent - generals could do whatever they wanted as long as they paid their troops enough, and the troops could be unboundedly greedy as long as they were obedient to their masters.

Sooner or later it was inevitable that Rome would simply become another object of conquest by its erstwhile "defenders," because in reality all that balanced the ambition of one general was the ambition of the others: They refrained from invading Rome only because it would give rivals an excuse to destroy them and take their wealth and territories, all with the imprimatur of law and the appearance of patriotism.  

The private wealth and power of the generals was so vast, and their personal experience of impunity so routine, that the republic was nothing more than a convenient pretext to be used or discarded whenever they pleased, and there wasn't much the Senate could do but appeal to other generals to rescue them.  Hence the Civil War (49-45 BC) between Caesar and Pompey Magnus - two rich, powerful military leaders whose factions were determined more by the incidental details of their political fortunes than by any particular concern for or antipathy toward the Senate.  

Julius Caesar

Rome, in other words, became merely a chessboard upon which rival dictators contended, and the "republic" as it once existed was little more than the venal mob who demanded only entertainment, and actually seemed to enjoy watching wealthy political figures murder each other for power.  The obvious consequence was that the domains of an Imperator eventually covered Rome itself, with the obedience of the people being easily bought, and came to include all of its territories.  We typically call this the beginning of the Roman Empire, even though historians make finer distinctions (e.g., the Principate beginning with Augustus), and even though Rome had possessed an empire long before itself becoming a possession of one.  

Due to the inherently martial nature of Empire, every ruler who expected to win and keep power (and by the 3rd century, even to live more than a few months on the throne) needed to buy the approval of the military with increasing pay and prerogatives.  A crass, bloodthirsty, lunatic tyrant might remain on the throne for over a decade if he kept the men-at-arms happy, but an "enlightened dictator" who was immensely popular with everyone but the military might be dead within a year of becoming emperor.  Even the emperors most acclaimed by history for their governance (i.e., the Five Good Emperors) were merely able to balance the rapacious greed of their armed forces without making any substantial inroads against them.

So it was that a relatively innocuous detail of military organization from the deepest roots of Roman society condemned its later history to centuries of savagery, misery, and oppression.  What they could have done differently to achieve a better outcome is a matter of academic debate, and beyond the scope of this discussion, but we can say that the ultimate lesson lies in not permitting the substance of public power to exist in private hands.  

By the later period of the republic, the Roman legions, although legally bound to the authority of the Senate, were operationally and economically independent of the Roman state - in other words, sovereign in all but name.  Cicero and his colleagues could rail and speechify against tyranny, but their resolutions could do nothing to directly impede the tyrant from crossing the Rubicon - had Caesar been the one to coin the phrase "I am the state," he would have been justified in saying so long before entering the city in arms.  Every Roman general was a king with loyal followers, a territory, and an essentially independent revenue, and the best to be done against them was to beg for help from another one just like them.

Now, what is the parallel with the modern United States?  Despite the common rhetoric of the left, I see almost no possibility of history directly repeating itself with respect to military dictatorship - it might happen in the distant future in brief interludes, but there is no operational basis for such a thing becoming the status quo: The US military command is far more complicated and transient, it has no independent economic resources, its impunity is limited even in active combat zones, and the financial compensations of military life are largely limited to top officers and are generally indirect (i.e., being hired by contractors after retirement).  While this changed for a while in the afterglow of the Allied victory in WW2, ambitious people in today's America generally do not join the military.  

So we must ask the question, what position do people seek in this country who want unbounded wealth, disproportionate political power, and virtual immunity from the rule of law?  The answer is portentous: Corporate executive.  The largest corporations transcend national boundaries, wield vast and virtually independent economic resources, interfere in elections and the legislative process with unfettered arrogance, expect (if not encourage) less than zero ethical restraint from their leadership, and reward executives with ever-escalating amounts of pillaged wealth from the economies of the world's nations.  They teach their employees not how to be productive, but how to steal from consumers, conceal crimes, lie to and betray everyone around them, and become complicit in their own debasement with the hollow promise of becoming one of the elite.    


As gradually as the legions became bloated, outsized instruments beyond the control of their origins, so America's corporations (and I call them American very loosely) have grown from private industry into gargantuan institutions of virtually sovereign economic power.  Much as the arbitrary decisions of the provincial governor ruled the lives of far more Romans than the free assembly, so the mundane degradations of the corporate office hold greater and more immediate sway over the lives of Americans than the resolutions of our legislatures.  For every right and protection of citizenship, a thousand petty business tactics are found to undermine, overwhelm, and erode it in daily life.


Americans are taught to outwardly obey and inwardly despise those above them in wealth and position, rather than working with people in a climate of mutual respect, common purpose, and assertive relationship.  It would be difficult to miss how this has affected the national attitude toward government, as people of all persuasions have tended to view leaders either as objects of unreasonable, thoughtless contempt or totems of omnipotence - sometimes even both at the same time.  The corporation teaches people duplicitous sycophancy in words, and selfish arrogance in actions, making them as useless as citizens as they are useful as employees and consumers.


We have always had such interests with us, but as in Rome there were initially social balances: Most Americans had no economic connection with large business interests, living on farms in rural communities and engaging in distant commerce only to purchase the occasional luxury or manufactured item - which might come from no further away than the main city of their own state, and have been produced by a small, privately-owned factory rather than a huge industrial empire.  

In the 19th century, even though business interests were increasingly powerful and corrupt, average people could establish themselves independently by moving Westward and founding new communities.  And in the bulk of the 20th century following the New Deal, a rigorous civil state was created through progressive taxation to inoculate the US against Stalin's intrigues and maintain a military capable of keeping Soviet ambitions in check - this much kept corporate power largely subordinate.  But then the Cold War ended, and all that appeared to remain for Americans to do was retreat into self-satisfied private life, seek only pleasure and entertainment, and pay no attention as corporations took over our lives.

Francis Fukuyama

A Roman legion ultimately served only the greed of its soldiers and the ambition of its generals, and it seems increasingly clear the same relationship may hold for corporate investors and executives: Economic and political apparatus larger than the economies of most nations are erected for the sole purpose of generating money for private interests, smashing every obstacle of morality, ethics, law, or even reality (witness the mortgage bubble) that gets in its way.  

The investor and the executive play the respective roles of the legionary and Imperator - the one pledging his resources for the chance of loot, even if ill-gotten or fictitious (they reason that they're smart enough to get out before other investors), and the other advancing in both wealth and power regardless of how the cannon fodder fare (e.g., multimillion-dollar bonuses going to CEOs who leave companies in ruins).

But these new legions are not destroying America by force of arms - they don't rape and pillage the American people directly, but by sucking the oxygen out of the economy: Industries are consolidated until people have no choice but to work for them, and protect their interests as their own.  They grow like weeds into the foundations of communities, states, and entire nations until they are "too big to fail," and yet they have had so much time to insinuate themselves into government that there is virtually no question of public support coming with serious strings attached.  They are regulated, if at all, by people they put in office, whose continued political fortunes depend on them, and against whom the corporate interest could hold jobs hostage: Regulate us, they say, and we will lay people off and blame you.


Perhaps the worst, most pernicious example of a corporate legion would be the financial industry: A system that long ago transcended the limits of economic complexity into a plain instrument of fraud.  This industry no longer exists to provide money to the economy, but to steal money from it, and the individuals whose interests are most closely aligned with it tend to be the most arrogant (and successful) intruders into the people's business.  They create nothing, and yet they hold implicit power over the ability of others to create - toll-takers on the path between the latent resources of the economy and those who would employ them to productive ends.  

As were the legions, the banks are utterly indispensable, extraordinarily difficult to restrain from power-grabs, and virtually impossible to return to a previous state of legal accountability once they've successfully escaped it.  In fact, their almost peremptory control over American politics make the financial sector analogous to a very particular branch of the Roman armed forces, although it didn't come into being until Augustus - the Praetorian Guard.  Originally implemented as the bodyguards of the Emperor, they slowly evolved into institutionalized hostage-takers who regularly held the entire Empire for ransom unless they received ever-increasing amounts of money and prerogatives.  It wasn't merely that they would kill an Emperor who went against them - they would kill an Emperor who merely failed to be as generous as someone else might be.

Eventually it came to pass that Emperors were, in effect, directly chosen by the Praetorian Guard and subject to their "dismissal" at any time.  This sounds like a check on imperial power, but in reality it was worse than none: All it assured was that a gang of murdering parasites would be fed in perpetuity on the backs of the Roman people, and any restraint that a secure ruler might have exercised would be sacrificed to his own fear of the Praetorians.  It was the worst of despotism and mob-rule combined in one endless cascade of horror, and though our current conditions are much less bloody, the operating principles are the same: Wall Street is basically ruled by an irrational, greedy mob who in turn rules Washington without respect to the national interest or humanity.  

American politics is unlikely to become as Wagnerian as the Crisis of the Third Century any time soon, but it can't be denied that the financial industry wields more than enough power to effectively dictate the outcome of elections under most circumstances.  Even our best and most effective leaders are forced to tread carefully around them: Regardless of what donations could be gathered by a wildly popular candidate, the financial industry could effectively print its own money to slander and sabotage them through thousands of simultaneously-coordinated print, radio, TV, and internet Hydra-heads, and even the most dedicated volunteer force might find it difficult to combat such a machine.  In other words, we find a troubling precedent that America's leaders need the permission of these parasites to govern, and are unable to do so if they attempt to deviate from their interests too greatly.

There is one particularly infamous anecdote of Roman history that seems apropos: Following the murder of Emperor Pertinax by the Praetorians - he had tried to hold them mildly accountable, so they hacked him to pieces - the Praetorians held an auction for the Imperial throne.  I'm not kidding: The largest empire the world had ever seen, totally encompassing the Mediterranean, stretching from Northern England to Mesopotamia, from modern-day Morocco to Armenia, was sold to the highest bidder by a few thousand thugs in a walled compound of one city.  Granted, the idiot who was dumb enough to buy the throne (Didius Julianus) was soon killed by an ambitious military leader, but it illustrates the fact that these people were acting entirely from personal interest, and didn't care the slightest about their country: They were already behaving as feudal lords long before Rome fell.  

As egregious as we think today's corporate interference in politics is, might there come a day when something as blatant as the Praetorian auction occurs, openly selling our high offices?  Perhaps not - even the degenerate Romans of the time were shocked and appalled by having their fiction of sovereignty blatantly exposed as a fraud, and the military leader (Septimius Severus, founder of the Severan dynasty) who killed the buyer was happy to exploit that outrage to affirm his own claim to power.  But then again, just because it would be disadvantageous to sacrifice the useful shroud of legitimacy doesn't mean such people won't do it - arrogance is the mother of many mistakes.

Still, It would seem there are advantages for civil society in a contest with corporations: Nobody is loyal to a corporation like soldiers were loyal to legions and commanders.  But then again, it wasn't so much the loyalty of the soldiers to their comrades that ended the Roman Republic as the lack of loyalty among the degenerate, self-interested citizens opposing them - people who could all too easily be bought, who fled from danger, and who were eventually content with their private prosperity under a tyrant.  So it isn't really the power of corporations that threatens us so much as the weakness of the citizenry - our general failure to serve as examples of what we wish to see in others; our preference for tactical argumentation over substantive discussion; the resources we waste on entertainment that could be devoted to the public good; and so on, and so on.

New Meadowlands Stadium, New Jersey

When I look at shining, state-of-the-art football stadiums surrounded by a sea of trailer parks and crumbling schools, it's difficult not to yield to the temptation of analogies to Rome, but it's just as important to understand that we have something they didn't: We can choose to want the same for others that we want for ourselves, and know from experience that it is not only possible, but brings out the best in a society.  The Romans, inheritors of the ancient warrior ethic and the fatalism of their ancestors, had no basis to make such a choice - to them, doing your best meant conquering others, proving your worth by crushing them.  

We know that this is not only a false dilemma, but a trap, and that the freest person is the one who lives surrounded by other free people - the richest, the one who cultivates prosperity in others.  Kings and dictators are prisoners in their own private hell; aristocrats in a servile society are surrounded by servants who despise them, peers inwardly hateful and envious of them, and superiors who treat them with open contempt; but a free citizen can have just as much money, be at infinitely greater liberty to use it, and relate to other people on the only level that ever really matters - as human beings.  

Of all the systemic causes of the Roman collapse, I think the most important is a philosophical one: They didn't know they had a choice.  They believed in the blind hand of fate, and resigning themselves to the horror that followed, pursued the basest motives as if mandated to do so by some divine obligation.  But there is no such mandate, and never was - there's just people making decisions, and the consequences that flow from them.  Live as a free person, and you are free - it doesn't matter how other people respond to your freedom.  Create, and you are prosperous - it doesn't matter how much money you get from it.  The legions of degenerate Rome could no more have vanquished a free Roman republic than corporations could destroy free America - they can only move into a vacuum.  And so long as you are there, choosing something better, there is no vacuum - America lives.

Originally posted to Troubadour on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 10:42 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is a terrific...I asked a question (15+ / 0-)

    today about why we have to spend so much time and money on our GOTV efforts and you have given me my answer:

    So it isn't really the power of corporations that threatens us so much as the weakness of the citizenry - our general failure to serve as examples of what we wish to see in others; our preference for tactical argumentation over substantive discussion; the resources we waste on entertainment that could be devoted to the public good; and so on, and so on.

    The question is are they worth it. It is truly sad.

    "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

    by lakehillsliberal on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 10:56:11 PM PDT

    •  Yes, it is sad. (6+ / 0-)

      In the absence of broad participation, people like us are nothing more than a learned aristocracy - and the more insular we become, the less "learned" we feel obliged to be.

      Liberty, Equality, Opportunity.

      by Troubadour on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:25:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just think how our media resources are wasted (4+ / 0-)

      The FCC used to regulate the broadcast channels to insure they would serve the public good. Now they just provide entertainment for profit. They don't fund the public channels because they were not serving the agenda of those in power at the time. Television could have been a great educator, instead we got the Coliseum in our living room.

      Cable news has become a wasteland because of it's emphasis on entertainment over information. There is so little in the way of education in our media because people prefer to be entertained instead of informed. We have watched the slow deterioration of television journalism with valuable minutes being filled with silly controversy that is little more than a trap to get viewers. Celebrity gossip has grown in prominence replacing serious stories. International news has almost vanished all together.

  •  better than a (4+ / 0-)

    coliseum full of lions and christians!

  •  A totally nothing comment on... (12+ / 0-)

    ...a totally awesome diary (no, despite my slang, I don't live in the Valley):

    Septimus Severus was born in what is now Libya (a term Rome once applied to  all of Africa, though they knew only its northern edge) in a city founded 3100 years ago by Phoenician traders. Because the Roman Leptis was buried for centuries, it is now one of the best preserved ancient cities in the world, and, if Libya ever gets it together could be a fantastic tourist center. Less than half of it has been dug out of the sand so far.

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:05:38 PM PDT

  •  Brilliant. Thanks. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hens Teeth, Troubadour, Larsstephens

    I fully agree on the huge amount of money spent under the heading of "entertainment".

    Get in Gear
    2010 or Bust
    A kossack hears more ridiculous opinions than a painting in the museum.

    by amk for obama on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:14:23 PM PDT

  •  imho, the most potent meme (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hens Teeth, Troubadour, SoCalSal

    the freest person is the one who lives surrounded by other free people … and relate to other people on the only level that ever really matters - as human beings.  

    With this, Liber-alism can begin to reclaim the mantle of "free-dom".

    Well done, again.

    ambiguity is okay--if you know what I mean

    by dorkenergy on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 12:30:24 AM PDT

  •  Amazing read. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hens Teeth, Troubadour

    Insightful, informative, and lots of good historical details (didn't realize the depth of Rome's military perils until you laid it out so clearly).

    I would only quibble slightly with your conclusion: I'm not so sure it's as much a simple choice... a lot of our wealth is illusory and likewise owned mainly by Corporations. Giving up wealth for Corporations will revoke built-up wealth for many upper and middle class folks.  Most folks "choose" not to give up their share of the wealth (ie, 401ks, housing values, etc).

    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

    by sacrelicious on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 12:32:43 AM PDT

  •  I was only able to skim this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but I bookmarked it for tomorrow for a more thorough read.

    Getting through the first one-third of the diary I know it's more than worthy of a tip and rec.


    "Trying to hold back the revision of history is always a good thing." -- Peter Christopherson

    by jethrock on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 01:50:19 AM PDT

  •  That Fukuyama quote (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, Troubadour, edtastic, dorkenergy

    has been responsible for more damage than most people know. In my little backyard of the world, the "end of history" was all the excuse needed to slash research budgets at the lab where I worked and get me tossed to the winds back in 1998.

    Also, size matters. The Classical Greek navies were funded by the wealthy, but it was on a ship-by-ship basis, with no individual family being able to afford the construction and crew maintenance for more than three ships apiece. A couple of Roman legions (and those large landed, slave-run estates of the Patrician class were deeper sources of funds than any "wealthy" Greek could have imagined) were far more of a threat than 3 ships with 100-odd salaried citizen-rowers and perhaps 20 marines on each.


  •  THIS is why I come to DKos. n/t (6+ / 0-)

    "You can never sink so low in life that you can't be a bad example for somebody." - My Dad

    by briefer on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 03:22:46 AM PDT

  •  Amazing Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I am at a loss for words and that don't happen often.

    I think this would  make a great book.

  •  Yes, but it's our money and we are a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    public corporation.  Indeed, we are the public corporations (nation and states) which spawn the private corporations, give them charters and then send them on their way to misbehave.

    It's like buying a car for an annoying teenager, giving him a credit card and telling him to go play somewhere else.  

    What's to be done?  States which charter corporations can, obviously, only exercise jurisdiction over operations within state boundaries.  Intrastate comity permits corporations chartered in one state to operate elsewhere.  Comity needs to be re-assessed since the corporations have proven such bad actors.  
    The immediate alternative is to order that private corporations conducting interstate or international operations must secure a federal charter, whose conditions federal agencies can monitor and enforce, and which can be dissolved in the event the conditions are not satisfied.

    Capital punishment for capital corporations.

    It will be argued that the FDIC and CPB, which are federally chartered corporations provide a template which would be too cumbersome to implement (can't have the President appointing all those boards), but the template can be adjusted.  Where there are shareholders, they can be relied on to designate boards and CEOs, especially if they can rely on back-up from federal agencies to see that laws are complied with.

    Our public corporations are or have the potential to be made accountable by the voters.  Private corporations can be made accountable by shareholders, but only if they have the law to back them up.

    It's not uncommon in nature for the off-spring to seek the demise of the progenitor.  Our private corporations have come to see themselves in a struggle to the death with our public ones, probably because they realize that those who made them do have the power to un-create them.  That's the one draw-back artificial persons can't overcome.  Seems really unfair to see potential immortality in the mirror and then see the public corporation ready to pull the plug.

    Bank regulation is a step in the right direction.  Insurance regulation by the states is an experiment to see if the states are up to the task.  If they're not, the hand-outs to the middlemen will have to be stopped and the payment system will have to be direct.

    The Constitution is not a menu for an exclusive diner.

    by hannah on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:39 AM PDT

    •  I never use "corporation" in the vague sense (0+ / 0-)

      of a chartered organization, only in the sense of a publicly-traded apparatus whose sole purpose is the acquisition of money.  I generally exclude closely-held private businesses, regardless of size, because they can be held accountable through their owners.

      Liberty, Equality, Opportunity.

      by Troubadour on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 05:16:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can have your own definition, of course, (0+ / 0-)

        but that doesn't make it so.  Fact is that our nation and states and counties and cities are organized as artificial bodies or persons.  This is what distinguishes them from natural person, the guys with the inalienable human rights.  It's because we've not been paying attention that private corporations have been able to claim rights to which they are not entitled.

        "Entitlement"-- it's an important word in the conservative vocabulary.  Secular authority has no purchase, if human rights are either from nature or God-given.  The arrogation of the deity to their side is the authoritarians' effort to justify their sovereignty and dominion -- they are speaking for God in order to exercise His power.  Think of the wizard of Oz and his electronic voice enhancer.  

        Even though Dorothy's informed she's not in Kansas anymore, the reality is that she's never left.  Kansas is where the Koch wizards sit.

        The Constitution is not a menu for an exclusive diner.

        by hannah on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 05:34:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A constitutional state is not an (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "artificial person," it's simply an agreement among people - and it has no authority or existence beyond that agreement.  The idea that there is some metaphysical entity apart from the individual human beings in government is irrational and unnecessary: They are chosen in an explicit process to implement explicit objectives according to explicit rules at the foundation of the very system that selected them.  Likewise, there is no corporate entity - there are only people and the decisions they make, and both "corporate personhood" and "sovereign immunity" are merely shields against accountability.

          Liberty, Equality, Opportunity.

          by Troubadour on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 05:56:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, it is an artifice or artifact-- (0+ / 0-)

            man made, rather than natural.  And, the state is organic in the sense that it acts.  The sum of its parts is greater than the individuals acting on their own.  Indeed, we assign the ability to use force, which individuals acting on their own are denied.

            A corporation is an entity and is recognized as such in the law.  It is set up specifically to relieve the individual participants of liability for any behavior that has negative consequences.  Granting this relief is based on the belief that by restricting the range of permitted behaviors of the corporation, negative consequences will be avoided as much as possible.  In our primary public corporation, those restrictions are reinforced by the distribution of tasks to three different segments which, presumably, will carry out checks on each other.  

            The problem with our private corporations, IMHO, is that, while they do have charters which spell out their duties and obligations, there's no effective enforcement from the outside and shareholders have been content to shrink their interest to just one matter--monetary profit.  And they haven't even noticed that their share in the enterprise has been artificially inflated by speculators who are entirely divorced from the enterprise.

            Corporations are different from natural persons in that the natural person has no enforceable obligation to DO anything positively, no pre-assigned duties. The natural person only has an obligation not to inflict injury on purpose on another's person or property and, if he does, he risks being punished after-wards.  Instead of a law (charter, constitution) outlining ahead of time what is to be done, the law deals with natural persons after a negative event.  Indeed, in addition to the presumption of innocence which precedes a finding of guilt, every person's actions are presumed good, until proved otherwise.  Which is why, when a permit is required, just to be on the safe side, to demonstrate that a person has the requisite skills to carry out a particular act (operating a vehicle, cutting off an arm, pulling a tooth), the action is presumably good and, if the conditions of the permit have been satisfied, the permit must be issued.  
            What happens when this principle is applied to an industrial corporation, whose ability to produce negatives is much greater than a natural person is capable of, and the requirement that monitoring equipment on smokestacks has been satisfied, then the permit to pollute must be issued.  What the industrial corporation is doing is presumably good and the environment, which receives the waste products, has no rights to be violated to begin with.
            What should happen is that the corporation's charter is not approved unless it contains specific provisions to prevent polluting the environment are contained therein.  
            It makes no sense for our public corporations to be charged with "protecting" the environment from despoliation, while the private corporations are given carte blanche to use nature for their toilet, as long as they keep track of the amounts.  Issuing prohibitions, akin to outlawing murder, doesn't have much effect, because a violation first has to occur; then it has to be proved; then it has to be punished and ordered stopped.  And, if that prohibition is violated, the sequence has to be gone through all over again.

            If the private corporation is restricted to operating within the authorizing public corporation's jurisdiction, then non-compliance with the charter would still have to be proved.  But, as a punishment the private corporation could be dissolved and its assets distributed to the injured parties.

            Capital punishment for capital corporations.

            The Constitution is not a menu for an exclusive diner.

            by hannah on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:08:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Who does a top CEO see as "his kind of people?" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    An international corporatist is not likely to identify with and feel loyal to ordinary Americans. The people he associates with, admires and feels loyal to are his counterparts, both in America and around the world.

    When you have a private jet and a private yacht and own multiple multi-million dollar homes....when you spend more time with your fellow corporatists in Singapore and Dubai and Milan than with fellow Americans....when you vacation in a villa in Italy or play golf on a private course in the much loyalty, really, are you going to feel towards a convenience store clerk in Weatherford, Texas, who just happens to be a fellow American?

    These people are not nationalists. They are corporatists and their loyalty is to those, like themselves, who have money and power.

    Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

    by Sirenus on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 06:04:51 AM PDT

  •  Incredible piece (4+ / 0-)

    This diary should be on the rec list.

    Corporations as the new legions just rang so true that it leaped from the screen.

    A Roman legion ultimately served only the greed of its soldiers and the ambition of its generals, and it seems increasingly clear the same relationship may hold for corporate investors and executives: Economic and political apparatus larger than the economies of most nations are erected for the sole purpose of generating money for private interests, smashing every obstacle of morality, ethics, law, or even reality (witness the mortgage bubble) that gets in its way.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site