Why corporations are psychotic

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-are-psychotic

Actually, no. Corporate libertarians would have you believe that somehow corporate dominance is entirely consistent with the values and vision of the Founding Fathers, but this is pure myth. The framers believed in limited government and free markets, but corporations were almost non-existent in the early days of the Republic. Unlike today, one could not form a corporation simply by filing a few papers with a government office; instead, permission from the government was needed (usually via an act of the Legislature) and was granted only upon a showing that the proposed corporation would be in the public interest. When corporate formation was allowed, strict terms and limitations were demanded.

In fact, Adam Smith, whose "Wealth of Nations" is often cited by corporate apologists as validating "free markets," warned against unrestrained, concentrated corporate power and instead encouraged small-scale, local economic activity. Published in 1776, "Wealth of Nations" predates the rise of corporate power, and suggestions by corporate libertarians that the book somehow supports the notion of corporate dominance are either mistaken or outright dishonest.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-are-psychotic

Alexander Hamilton was part of the the writing of the Federalist Papers, an aid to Washington throughout the revolutionary war and part of his first cabinet.

He was a huge pimp for the manufactory industry wanting that type of production here. He championed the idea of the federal bank from the get go and was a noted elitist despite his background.

He certainly was on of the founding fathers its just that his idea's won out over the more egalitarian ideals of Jefferson and Madison.

They hated each other. Burr shot Hamilton dead and went on to serve in Madison's cabinet.

Its fun and all to paint our original politicians with a single stroke but its just not true.

[Winehole23]

Think you missed his point, hoss.

Smith wasn't the corporate libertarian he's made out to be now, and the corporation was viewed as being like its predecessor the royal franchise: a pure creature of the state, subject to whatever terms and limitations the sovereign may impose.

Today the corporation looks more like a quasi-citizen, having political and free speech rights protected by the state, from the people. Quite a reversal from the days of the founding.

[Marcus Bryant]

Smith wasn't the corporate libertarian he's made out to be now, and the corporation was viewed as being like its predecessor the royal franchise: a pure creature of the state, subject to whatever terms and limitations the sovereign may impose.

Smith also did not presage Rand and her ilk, as his The Theory of Moral Sentiments attests.

[Marcus Bryant]

Today the corporation looks more like a quasi-citizen, having political and free speech rights protected by the state, from the people. Quite a reversal from the days of the founding.

The obligatory link to Chief Justice (and obvious communist) Rehnquist's views on corporate personhood.

The citizen, now completely a subject of the federal state, is considered on equal legal standing with that of a legal fiction. Meanwhile public policy continues its long march to the standardization of each individual (of the flesh and blood variety), their experiences, their at udes, and their souls. Without the buffer of family, state and local governments, churches, and other intermediary associations, the individual enjoys perfect corporate freedom.

[Marcus Bryant]

That is, while corporations continue to be turned into persons by the law, people continue to be turned into corporations.

[MannyIsGod]

Good read.