The (Un)Natural Rights of Corporations: How Money-Worship Corrupts Our Humanity

Un-Natural Rights of Corporations, Corporate RightsIn 2010’s Citizens United v the FEC, the US Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same right to free speech as any living, breathing human being. Not only did the decision enable big businesses to flood our elections with vast amounts of capital unavailable to peasants ( or any individual, really ), but it reinforced the legal identity of corporations as “people” which — not who — are endowed with rights. The notion of corporate rights is interesting considering that the US was founded on the ideals of liberalism, a political philosophy which emerged from the so-called Age of Enlightenment, rooted in a principle called natural law. The thinkers who developed these ideas — John Locke, Thomas Paine, John Milton, & others — would be confused ( at least ) or ( more likely ) horrified at the idea that an abstract institution, such as a corporation, has rights.

And here’s why…

The Origins of Natural Law & Natural Rights

Freedom of Speech for CorporationsThe first thing to understand is that the whole idea of “rights” is pretty new in the western world. Before the European monarchic systems were overthrown in favor of liberal ones ruled by laws, nobody really had rights per se aside from the rich & powerful — so, mostly kings, popes, & other jerks. Sure, most folks could speak freely or enjoy privacy in their own home — until the king got miffed at what you said or decided he needed your stuff. Rulers got away with this because, with the help of corrupt religious institutions & a bit of violence, enough people accepted ( or were too scared to challenge ) the idea that autocrats had the “divine right to rule.” The king was the king because the Almighty Lord said so.

Then, something wonderful happened — books. When printing was invented, the people could spread & exchange new ideas much faster and popular thinkers began to question the absolute authority of the state & of religion. Exchange with African & Arab cultures revived European interest in things like Greek literature, which the Muslims had preserved in ‘Arabic after the Church torched the scrolls of heathens like Plato & Aristotle. The Greek concept of natural law went viral among the political thinkers & radical intellectuals who used it to challenge the supposed right-to-rule of monarchs & to explore alternative theories of government.

Natural Rights Broke the Ideology of Monarchism

Theorists like John Locke & Thomas Paine adapted the popular idea of natural law to argue that people had natural rights which could not be taken away — even by God’s appointed ruler. The world was governed by a set of natural laws which could be discovered by using reason, since reason was a part of human nature & human nature was a part of the natural order. Using observations about the natural order as evidence, they reasoned that violating certain rights went against natural law. According to John Locke, people had the right to liveto be free, & to the products of their labor. That may seem basic but, at the time, it was revolutionary and not just in the figurative “blow-your-mind” sense but also in a literal “the-French-actually-cut-the-king’s-head-off-at-the-end” sense of the word.

Rights Come from Natural Order, Not Social Order

Original natural rights vs. corporate rights
A bit white & patriarchal but still pretty decent for the mid-1600s…

Which natural rights we had was often controversial but the founding thinkers of liberalism agreed that — whatever they were & however many — they definitely existed. To John Locke & many of his peers, natural law had greater authority than any king or pope because they saw natural law as a direct creation of God’s, which conferred moral authority to it. Whatever we believe, the important point here is that the order of the natural world was sacred to folks like John Locke and, religious or not, many of us today still harbor a mysterious suspicion that there is something pretty damned important about it.

Besides — even if the existence of natural rights were someday proved to be mere superstition — it would nonetheless be a superstition which empowered the people to storm the Bastille and that has got to be worth something.

Corporate Rights
Is a Non-Sense Idea

US Supreme Court decision grants rights to Corporations

The idea that a corporation — an abstract organizational tool — is endowed with rights is incoherent. Corporations having rights makes as much sense as vacuum cleaners deserving justice — the concept just does not apply. Advocates for corporate rights argue that corporations are just groups of people and, since people have rights, corporations have rights by extension. The reality, however, is the opposite because corporations are specifically designed to limit the degree of human control & involvement.

Understanding What a Corporation Is

Corporate Rights: How Investment Interferes with ReasonA corporation is essentially an organization formed with a specific intention, often to profit, and the most basic is called a joint-stock company. As a tool to encourage investment, the idea to sell stock in a company ( called “shares” ) was ingenious. Stock was invented when a lot of trade was done by navigating ships with maps that had spooky dragons inked in the margins, which was risky business. Entrepreneurs had concerns about investing in trading vessels which often got sunk, lost, pirated, & possibly even eaten by monsters. The Dutch fixed this by selling fractions of a ship to decrease the risks for investors, resulting in more funds for business & higher profits. Investing in 1/10th of 10 separate ships was far less risky than investing in 1 ship which might easily be smooshed by a watery beast.

To protect investors from being cheated, new laws were written that required corporate businesses to act in their shareholders’ interests by holding managers accountable for decisions that were dishonest, incompetent, or intentionally reduced profits. Corporate history is long & complex but the result is that today’s corporations are run by folks who are legally required to serve the profit of shareholders. The important point is that corporations are driven by profit — not by human reason. Corporate managers are not free to act according to what they think is right or just or best for our society — in fact, the logic of profit sometimes forbids it.

Corporate Motives Exist Independently of Human Desires

The children of humanity share the same set of basic interests & concerns — clean air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, a shelter over our heads, & social interactions to keep us from going crazy. This fundamentally shared aspect of the human experience informs our behavior, allowing us to act ( most of the time, anyway ) in ways that seem reasonable to our peers — this is a big part of what the liberal thinkers called our “human nature.” And corporations simply do not share this human nature. While incorporation is a handy tool for organizing business & finance, corporate entities necessarily end up possessing a “thirst” for money & a “hunger” for resources that may or may not be consistent with the goals of society or of individuals.

Giving “Rights” to Corporations
Threatens the Existence of Rights Altogether

The people of the United States need to remember why we instituted rights in the first place or we risk regression to a higher-tech version of the Dark Ages, destroying what progress we made so far toward establishing truly just & civil societies. We developed the idea of rights precisely to overthrow the “right” of powerful institutions — at the time, monarchy & the Church — to act in their self-interest when it opposed human reason or well-being. The purpose of rights is to ensure that people, who by nature share common interests & the ability to reason, remain in control of society’s institutions — and not the other way around.

Corporate entities are made by people — they are not people. To paraphrase the incisive query of the Hebrew teacher, Isaiah — “shall the clay criticize the potter who formed it?” There was a time when institutions were held more sacred & cared for more diligently than the people whom the institutions were made to serve, all for the greed & thirst for power of a few. Our ancestors fell victim to the lie before and, now upon hearing the lie again, we must renew our understanding to remind our society that corporations are not people.

In solidarity,
John Laurits

P.S. Just to be clear, I am not endorsing the philosophies, politics, or ideologies of John Locke, Thomas Paine, et al, or of liberalism in general — nor am I dismissing them altogether. My purpose here was to explain natural law, rights, & the historical context of those ideas. As a socialist, I fundamentally disagree with many of the underlying assumptions of liberal ideology but — speaking strictly in relation to the European autocracies of ages past — the classical liberals’ conception of rights seems to have mostly been an improvement. 

If you enjoy these posts, consider buying the writer a cup of coffee using PayPal or making a monthly donation using Patreon — it’s like a voluntary subscription directly to an artist & journalist

Help independent media grow by submitting content ( like this post ) to popular websites where more people can see it. You can help spread this article by submitting it to Stumbleupon or Reddit using the buttons below
submit to stumbleuponsubmit to reddit

Best Comment Section in the Galaxy

Notify of
avatar
5000
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Thelma Follett
Guest
Thelma Follett
How the Israel Anti-Boycott Act Threatens First Amendment Rights By ACLU July 26, 2017 | 5:00 PM https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-israel-anti-boycott-act-threatens-first-amendment-rights s.720 Hall of shame: Cantwell and Larsen are supporting this bill. Write or call to protest. Highlights: Abrogation of 1st Amendment rights and chilling effect: On its face, the bill appears to directly prohibit boycott activity that is protected under the First Amendment. Even if the bill could be interpreted more narrowly, as some of its supporters claim, its broad language could still chill protected expression by scaring people into self-censorship. Either way, the bill would impose serious First Amendment harms. Bars requests for information severely limiting the individual’s right… Read more »
Leon Stephens
Guest
It occurs to me that this supposed equivalence of a corporation to a person is implicitly what justifies, in the twisted minds of those who believe such an abomination, the central issue in treaties like Trans-Pacific “Partnership” and the European trade treaty whose name I don’t remember, the preference of the corporate “right to profit” over legislation designed to protect the environment, or which in whatever way interferes with corporate greed: apparently a corporation having human rights must necessarily have the “right to eat” even if that means devouring all the resources of entire countries. When the judicial system is corrupt – and you can’t go any higher… Read more »
JoAn Day
Guest
Excellent discussion. I found it interesting in A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES 1492 TO PRESENT by Howard Zinn that in the 1600s, the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, claimed that the Indians had only a “natural” right to the land, not a “civil” right; and for the Native Americans, their “natural right” had no standing. Zinn also states that in the 1800s the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment, which was supposed to protect blacks, to protect corporations. Of the 307 Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before them in the 20 years between 1890 and 1910, 288 dealt with corporations, not people. Toasting the… Read more »