Corporate Shareholders Are Slave Owners!


Jul 29, 2012 by

You can own property, but you can’t own other people. Those who do own other people are slave owners. Those who are owned are slaves.

Corporations are people, ‘persons’ or ‘natural persons’ as they are usually referred to in court. They are owned by corporate share owners. Corporations are therefore slaves and must be liberated. And doing so is the great civil rights issue of our time.

All these statements are so obviously true that it is almost painful to have to explain, much less justify, them. But so warped has our thinking become in these matters, so cowardly when it comes to facing up to a possible disruption of an established economic order, that I’m obliged to do so here.

Corporations are born (incorporated) in a defined place at a defined time. Die (go bankrupt) the same way. Get married (merge). Beget offspring (spin-offs). Adopt (acquisitions). They borrow, loan, bequeath, give charity, get sued, hire, fire, own properties, and as that Citizens United Supreme Court decision made clear, they have the same right to free speech as any other person. Even Mitt Romney, who may soon be President of these United States, stated recently that “corporations are people.”

Such is the everyday proof of corporate personhood. Here’s the legal proof.

Since the Supreme Court’s Dartmouth College v Woodward decision in 1819, courts have upheld the view that corporations are “natural persons” (i.e. humans). Many other court decisions since that time have upheld this same view.

In perhaps he most direct statement of the court’s thinking on this matter, in a 1898 case the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating: “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all [every Justice] of the opinion that it does.” The same clarity was on view in a later case, Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania. Here the Court ruled (and not just in a note either) that: “Under the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included…in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Here’s what the Fourteenth Amendment itself says in regard to people (i.e. persons) who happen to be, as courts have often decreed, corporations: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

And here’s what the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution says about having people — a term that so clearly includes corporations — as slaves: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Put it all together, especially the juxtapose of the Thirteen and Fourteenth Amendments and their interpretation at the highest judicial levels, and it seems almost impossible that any fair-minded person (homo sapien or homo corporatus) should not immediately call for the end of stockholder ownership of U.S.-formed corporations. But fair-minded aside, would the present-day Supreme Court step up on this issue?

Certainly it could. I mean, this is a court that has proven itself fearless with regard to the consequences of its rulings. Beyond this, turning corporate persons into freemen would be a perfect bookend to the court’s despicable 1858 Dred Scott decision that held African-Americans to be property and hence deserving of slavedom, by today turning entities (corporations), who a lot of people still consider mere property, into fully liberated citizens.

As for the supposed negative social consequences of such a ruling, fears that one’s sister, for example, might get it on with Yahoo or Facebook. Surely that’s her business. And in case you haven’t noticed, she probably already is.

Which brings us back to that old economic bugaboo. The fear that emancipating corporations from their slave owning stockholders would bring about economic disaster. In this regard I need only point back to this country’s own pre-Civil War history with slavery, when slaves were the largest single store of easily sold “property.” After not a single dollar in compensation was paid to slave owners after passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, the American economy did not collapse. It thrived.

Freed corporations would also not suffer from lack of “guidance” by their former slave owning shareholders, or from the Simon Legrees of Wall Street endlessly demanding more and more for these shareholders at the expense of corporate workers and customers. Indeed, no longer obliged to skim off earned profits to pad the lifestyles of fat cat investors and Street sharks, the economy would certainly do very much better.

If the courts fail in this crusade, fail to immediately put on their big kid robes and risk established interest slings and arrows to do what plainly ought be done here, perhaps we need look elsewhere for a savior. Not a Clarence Darrow legal eagle to change legal minds, but a Charlton Heston-like figure doing the Moses thing to bring about the liberation.

I can visualize someone very like Heston, hair tastefully upswept and white-tinted, attired in flowing wine-dark robes, sporting domestically produced sandals on feet with festering corns the product of disdaining public transit, and a mighty staff that doubles as a snake that eats any three snakes pitted against it (my snake is bigger than yours — an argument that resonates especially well with young right-leaning males), standing on the steps of the Supreme Court Building in Washington, crying out to all within:

“Let Ford Motors Go!”

That’s what I’ve been visualizing of late. Are you having this vision, too?

Donate to The Moderate Voice

Share This

Sponsors

468 ad

6 Comments

  1. Wow, that is funny!!

  2. Cedarbear

    Let’s push through the smoke and mirrors and get to the core of the issue. The rescinding of Glass-Steagall, privatization of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and continued lack of accountability of the Federal Reserve – ALL driven by the elite stock-held big fat-cat corporations and insider-traiding/hedge funds mongering super wealthy…

    To-Big-To-Fail corporations and the super wealthy of this country are responsible for the tanking of the US economy, not the working middle class American, yet it is the working middle class American, through massive tax subsidies and tax payer bail-outs, that is carrying the burden of these econo-facist parasites of American democracy.

    Fact is, the greatest beneficiaries of the economic madness of the 90′s and early decade of the 2000′s were the To-Big-To-Fail corporations and super wealthy. Now don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. I’m actually all fine and dandy with anyone making a profit, even ludicrous profits, so long as they pay their ‘fair’ share of taxes and don’t dupe our congressman into believing they need taxpayer paid subsidies, tax breaks/exemptions and loan guarantees that are not available to the working middle class and even worse, the main street sized small business entities.

    Welfare by any name, even ‘Corporate’ welfare, in its many forms and iterations, is still welfare, paid for by the taxpayer, all the same!

  3. zephyr

    Well, Charleton Heston in his last major public incarnation was all about being an NRA spokesman, a role which has since been taken over by the likes of Ted Nugent. D’ya suppose Ted could do the Moses figure in his place? ;-)

    (Btw, the concept of Corporations being people really points up how far our society is willing to go off the rails… as if there isn’t more than enough sufficient proof of this in so many other areas.)

  4. The_Ohioan

    I dunno. With so many owners, it seems the slave is really only accountable to only the overseer/CFO and is quite healthy and doing well in today’s world.

    It’s kind of like the mortgage on a property I’m trying to buy which has apparently been owned by several masters at the same time and no one can determine who actually owns it so I can buy it. Too many owners spoil a property?

  5. petew

    Like the saying goes, “this would all be funny if it weren’t so true.” This satirical discussion of corporate person-hood is based on one of the most bizarre Supreme Court rulings ever made in modern times.

    A retired Supreme Court justice (whose name I sadly, cannot recall at present) has pointed our that, considering the freedoms they have to make unlimited campaign donations, not one Corporation has the right to cast a collective vote.

    One could also add that now, Corporate owned industries like coal, oil, or mining companies should have the same rights as individuals not to be barred from establishing residences in any neighborhood which is open to any other individual. If you don’t want a carbon di-oxide, coal burning, sulfur di-oxide, carbon mon-oxide, belching factory in the middle of your block, well, who the hell do you think you are anyway? And don’t bother to sick OSHA on any unsafe working areas displaying hazardous conditions–you will only be violating the right to privacy, which, much like private residences, corporate people will invoke to prevent any unlawful federal inspections.

    This is a very funny article because it involves a very “funny” court decision–if you know what I mean?! People like Karl Rove are now laughing all the way to the bank–any time they want to!

  6. Rcoutme

    @Petew, Rove and Company are not laughing all the way to the bank–the bank comes to them, laughing all the way.