Dodd Harris over at OTB makes the excellent point that:
At the core, corporations are just human constructs. We invented them to further our own purposes. They exist as concepts rather than physical objects, but have no more or less moral agency than any other human invention. Just as a gun or a piece of paper are, in and of themselves, neither moral nor immoral but can be used either way, so too are corporate entities morally neutral. It suits the purposes of people as individuals to concatenate into corporations.
I tell him…
It has always struck me as odd that those on the left spend so much of their time catering and kissing the backsides of various favored groupings of individuals, such as a race a gender or a sexual orientation, and yet do consider that corporations… which are in fact groups of individuals just like those they favor… have fewer rights than those they favor. And yes, I consider that groupings based on race a gender or a sexual orientation, are human constructs as well.
Maybe, just maybe, in the end, it’s just because private corporations do not fit in with the neo-socialist mantra?
I would add a question; What makes Unions more moral than corporation in the eyes of the left, hmmm?
Tags: agency, backsides, catering, concatenate, CORE, corporate entities, dodd, end, excellent point, fact, gender, groupings, gun, Harris, hmmm, human invention, invention, left, moral agency, orientation, OTB, paper, piece, piece of paper, point, private corporations, race, sexual orientation, socialist, time, Unions, way
Print This Post
Subscribe to RSS feed
January 23rd, 2010 at 23:17
“What makes Unions more moral than corporation in the eyes of the left, hmmm?”
Oh, that’s an easy one. Unions were created by devout leftists as part of the great socialist collective, while corporations were created by evil capitalists. Can’t you tell the different between good and evil?
January 24th, 2010 at 12:55
Well observed, sir.
There is, of course, more than a grain of truth at the center of that commentary.
It seems to me, that those who were seeking a limitation on the ability of the corporation to represent itself within the halls of government, ignore the limitations on the corporation\’s ability to represent itself to the Argentine government, for example. As one corporation after another in the land of whackjob Hugo Chavez he gets nationalized, and the others are bullied into silence, it seems to me that we as Americans, supposedly believers in free enterprise , should seriously reconsider any moves to limit of corporations ability to represent itself within government. Consider, for example, limitations on executive pay, and the implications on the company\’s performance.
Do we really want government making those kind of decisions? Do we really want a defacto government takeover of private industry? I think we can certainly point to a specific group that wishes for that kind of governmental control… and … what do you know… it is in majority the very ones wetting their pants over the USSC ruling in this matter.
And does anyone seriously consider that we’ll stop such takeovers once healthcare is snatched?
January 24th, 2010 at 15:03
Look at it another way. The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law infringing on Free Speech. That nature of the speaker, be it person or corporation makes utterly no difference. Congress has no constitutional authority to limit any speech, no matter the nature of the speaker. No law, means no law. I know it is difficult concept for nitwits like Keith Olbermann and Dirty Harry Reid to understand.