2
1
1
Madison, WI (OpEdNews) -- The latest decision by the Supreme Court to open the floodgates of corporate funding for political advertising as a form of "free speech" represents one of the most contemptible decisions in the history of the court, which only matches -- in the magnitude of its stupidity and inconsistency with the principles of the Constitution, which the justices are sworn to uphold -- the decision to stop the recount of the vote in Florida, which gave the election of 2000 to George W. Bush. We have been reeling from the consequences of that decision -- which not only subverted democratic procedures in the country but unleashed untold evils in the form of massive tax cuts for the rich, the loss of civil liberties, and wars of aggression involving violations of international law, the UN Charter, and even the Constitution itself. It was hard to image how the court could have done anything worse -- until it gave us this decision.
The propensity of corporations, including our banks and mortgage institutions, to maximize benefits in the form of profits should lead us to expect that more corporate influence in political campaigns will not make matters better but almost certainly worse. Indeed, the thought has crossed more than one rational mind that, if corporations as prominent as AIG, Goldman-Sachs, and CitiBank, not to mention Halliburton, Raytheon, and other giants of the military-industrial complex, are now going to exert even more influence in political and economic affairs, then perhaps the only reason we haven't heard of more cases of corruption of this kind in the past -- apart from the occasional savings and loan scandal, for example -- has been a function of ignorance, where we haven't known because our nation's press has failed to keep us informed.
What are Corporations?
The underlying reasons, however, may run deeper than that. One problem that has arisen within this context has been a matter of understanding what the word "corporation" should be understood to mean. The alternatives range from that of a nexus of contracts to a person, where the first reflects a function of corporations (to enter into contracts) and the second a legal fiction (since a business is not a person). One place to start to come to grips with this problem is the dictionary, which offers the following conception(s):
(D1) corporation = 1 a legal entity, consisting usually of a group of people who have a charter granting it perpetual life, that is invested with many of the legal powers given to individuals: a corporation may enter into contracts, by and sell property, etc. 2 a group of people, as the mayor and aldermen of an incorporated town, legally authorized to act as an individual. 3 any of the political and economic bodies forming a corporative state, each being composed of the employers and employees in a certain industry, profession, etc. 4 a large, prominent belly (Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd College Edition 1988).
Imagine my surprise to discover that, contrary to my sincere belief that corporations are not persons, there are definitions, such as 4 above, according to which a mere part of a person can qualify as a corporation, especially since I had never before thought of myself from that point of view! The evidence in my case may be indisputable, but the sense at stake here is not 4 but rather 1, which identifies corporations with a group of people who are organized for the conduct of business by entering into contracts, which assigns the function (entering into contracts) with those who exercise it (the owners).
The owners of corporations are not necessarily the same as their officers or employees, of course, except in cases in which the officers or employees own stock in the company. A rather important distinction must therefore be drawn between "stockholders", who are the owners of the company in the strict sense, and "stakeholders", who are persons or other entities having interests that may be affected by its conduct of business, for better or for worse. That includes employees, customers, creditors, and suppliers as well as stockholders, not to mention the community, the environment, and the world.
Just to sharpen our focus and avoid misunderstanding, the conception of corporation that appears to matter within this context can be captured by the following definition:
(D2) corporation = a legal entity consisting of an arrangement of people and property (roles and assets) interacting together for the purpose of conducting business by a nexus of contracts.
Although this definition may appear to be neutral with regard to the question before us, it fails to take into account the historical context of the times. As Marjorie Kelly, The Divine Right of Capital(2001), has astutely observed, the standard conception of corporations--the prevailing paradigm within American society--accepts the crucial principle that "the only social responsibility of the corporation is to make a profit", which was initially enunciated by a Nobel Laureate in Economics, Milton Friedman, which might be encapsulated by the slogan that, when it comes to corporations, "Greed is good!"
Lest we not recognize the importance of this principle, Kelly elaborates its meaning:
In corporate society, good is what is in the interest of stockholders. That is the primary criterion of morality. It means the corporation has the right to do financial violence to its employees or the environment (conducting massive layoffs, clear-cutting forests), or to attack other corporations (brutal competition, hostile takeovers), if that increases the well-being of the ruling tribe, the stockholders.
Indeed, according to Kelly, prominent philosophers, including Karl R. Popper, have characterized (what he calls) "the totalitarian theory of morality" as maintaining that "good is what is in the interest of my group; or my tribe; or my state". Thus, such states, for example, are permitted to attack other states, or to do violence to their own citizens, if it benefits the ruling tribe. Or, alternatively, such corporations are permitted to attack other corporations, or to do violence to their own employees, if it benefits the stockholders. These states and corporations are explicitly amoral.
What Makes Something Immoral?
If Popper is correct, then corporations certainly appear to be inherently corrupt. But is he correct? The answer depends upon which theory of morality is correct. There are many claimants to that role, including subjective theories, family-value theories, religious-based theories, and culture-related theories, according to which actions are right when you (your family, your religion, or your culture) approve of it. So if you (your family, your religion, or your culture) approve of incest, cannibalism, or sacrificing virgins to appease the gods, such actions cannot be immoral. They are moral, necessarily.
All of these approaches make morality a matter of power, where right reduces to might. If someone approves of killing, robbing, or raping you, you have no basis to complain on the ground that those actions are immoral, if subjectivism is correct. Similarly for family, religion, and culture-based alternatives. Every person, every family, every religion, and very culture is equal, regardless of their practices, respectively, if such theories are true.
