Ron Paul: Corporate personhood advocate?

[BobDylan]

Hello. I'm new to Ron Paul but, recently I ran across this page here: link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Cloak_And_Dagger/ron-paul-presidential-exploratory-committee_n_853566_85755862.html) And they claim that Ron Paul is a pro-corporate type person, is this true?

[kah13176]

First, I wish to welcome you to the Ron Paul camp. We're glad you took the time to sign up here and feel free to ask questions and join the discussions in other threads as well as the chat room.

Now...It is not what you think. Corporatism is a cozy relationship between government and business. Many people think that Wall Street will only get bigger in a free market that Paul advocates. It is a common misconception that Ron Paul, because he supports a free market, also supports unethical corporations and big-business. However, these are the main reasons why Wall Street is so huge:

- Government bailouts. Wall Street acts irresponsibly, and it gets multibillion dollar taxpayer-funded bailouts. A free market would've let them fail as those crooks should have. Thus, Ron Paul voted against every Wall Street bailout, from the banks to the auto companies.

- The Federal Reserve. This organization is responsible for printing money and controlling how much money is in circulation. Many of the top banks are in bed with the Federal Reserve ("Fed" for short). When Wall Street banks are irresponsible, the Fed is there to literally bail them out and act as a lender of last resort. This allows banks to get away with metaphorical murder while raking in obscene profits. Also, when the Fed prints money, through the phenomena of inflation, big banks get to spend the new money at its full value. As it trickles down through the economy to the middle class and the poor, the money starts to lose value. Thus, there is an unseen redistribution of wealth from the poor to the obscenely, unjustly rich on Wall Street. Ron Paul wants to gradually bring an end to the Federal Reserve for this and wide variety of other reasons.

- Tax breaks. It has been shown that small businesses pay much more taxes relative to huge corporations. Ron Paul wants to bring an end to this disparity.

These three points above comprise what is known as corporatism. Ron Paul is staunchly against corporatism, but supports a free market.

[sailingaway]

I saw something once where Ron said he didn't think corporations were persons. I'd have to find it, but I cared, so I remembered. [edit, I just looked for this quickly and couldn't find it. I found lots of speculation.]

But to say pro or anti corporation -- Ron thinks people should be able to gather in unions voluntarily, corporations voluntarily.... but he is ANTI-corporaTIST meaning he is adamantly against what he calls crony capitalism where the spoils are doled out to the well connected. It is one of the big reasons why he is against NAFTA.

--
edit, ok your link was to a commenter on HuffPo. They mostly only like little bits of him and spend a lot of energy warning eachother not to let their guard down to like him too much. Mostly it isn't worth arguing with them about it.

[specsaregood]

I saw something once where Ron said he didn't think corporations were persons. I'd have to find it, but I cared, so I remembered. [edit, I just looked for this quickly and couldn't find it. I found lots of speculation.

I recall him saying that as well. I don't remember where but i think it is safe to sy that he against corporate personhood.

[erowe1]

i think it is safe to sy that he against corporate personhood.

Why do you think that?

I've never understood the anti-corporate sentiment around here.

[sratiug]

Why do you think that?

I've never understood the anti-corporate sentiment around here.


Because corporations are not people and have no souls, therefore they are evil entities that were always meant to be severely restricted in operation and duration by the chartering state.

[Travlyr]

Hello. I'm new to Ron Paul but, recently I ran across this page here: link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Cloak_And_Dagger/ron-paul-presidential-exploratory-committee_n_853566_85755862.html) And they claim that Ron Paul is a pro-corporate type person, is this true?

The very best place to learn of Ron Paul's positions is to read his books. He has written many.

[sailingaway]

Why do you think that?

I've never understood the anti-corporate sentiment around here.

Corporate entities are neutral, but should they be able to vote?

[low preference guy]

The very best place to learn of Ron Paul's positions is to read his books. He has written many.

Do you know if he wrote specifically about corporate personhood?

[specsaregood]

Why do you think that?


because i remember him speaking about it.

[erowe1]

Corporate entities are neutral, but should they be able to vote?

No. And they can't vote. Is that really an issue?

[KramerDSP]

Welcome, OP!

Here is a video I made a couple of years ago. It does not address personhood, but it does address Corporatism.

Ron Paul Blasts Corporatism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwwXgPiySto

[Romantarchist]

The vast majority of people who complain about "corporate personhood" are strong supporters of union personhood.

[erowe1]

because i remember him speaking about it.

I'd really be interested in seeing that. I'm skeptical.

I wouldn't doubt that he said something like what sailingaway said, that corporations aren't persons. But that's just stating a fact that, taken literally, no one disagrees with. But if he actually came out against our right to incorporate, that would really surprise me.

[erowe1]

Because corporations are not people and have no souls, therefore they are evil entities that were always meant to be severely restricted in operation and duration by the chartering state.

I can't tell. Are you being sarcastic?

[specsaregood]

I'd really be interested in seeing that. I'm skeptical.

I wouldn't doubt that he said something like what sailingaway said, that corporations aren't persons. But that's just stating a fact that, taken literally, no one disagrees with. But if he actually came out against our right to incorporate, that would really surprise me.

Yeah, I can't remember where he was asked about it; it was definitely during 2007.

[heavenlyboy34]

Because corporations are not people and have no souls, therefore they are evil entities that were always meant to be severely restricted in operation and duration by the chartering state.

True, but the nature of corporations is different than others (such as LLCs). Corporations aren't "evil" by themselves(they are accountable to stockholders and the laws of economics), but they are when they collude with the State. I am a member of a credit union, which makes me a stockholder. This status means I get better service than I did when I was with Bank of America (probably ditto with the other big banks).

[nayjevin]

Hello. I'm new to Ron Paul but, recently I ran across this page here: link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Cloak_And_Dagger/ron-paul-presidential-exploratory-committee_n_853566_85755862.html) And they claim that Ron Paul is a pro-corporate type person, is this true?

Welcome! While I can't answer your question directly for the same reasons as other posters, I'm happy to ramble abit on the subject. ;) Like many of Ron's positions, anything 'corporatism' requires a bit of backstory.

With lobbying and crony-capitalism and a revolving door between government, banks, lobbyists, and corporations, we're in a situation where practically no industry has the competition it needs to satisfy consumers as well as it should.

Monopolies rarely form when government isn't involved, and when they do they don't last long because of competition. Without government, consumers just go elsewhere when they aren't happy, or they can start a business to compete if there is only one available option.

But when a corporation uses government to secure market share of an industry, it no longer has to satisfy consumers and respond to demand. The government interference in the market amounts to a distortion in favor of the established market players.

With Wall St., banks, financing, multinational conglomerates it gets tricky, because corporate lobbyists and lawyers have practically perfected the art of crafting good-sounding legislation that in reality benefits them by driving out competition. Too often regulations sound good but have the side-effect of being a 'barrier to entry' -- meaning that even if they solve some problem in the industry, they also make it too expensive for small businesses to enter the market and provide necessary competition.

Ron Paul does not endorse restrictions on business - but that's not because he is 'pro business' over the individual. It's because what inevitably happens is that the corporations that are already huge aren't bothered by new restrictions or regulations. In fact they encourage them -- because only they can afford to adhere. Up and coming businesses that might have a better product have a harder time competing. Such is also the case with business licensing and taxes, on a smaller scale.

So wall'o'text for ya. Thanks for stopping by, look around abit!

[Travlyr]

Do you know if he wrote specifically about corporate personhood?

No, I have not read anything in his books yet that refer specifically to corporate personhood. If it is authorized in the Constitution, then he would likely support it... if it is not authorized... he wouldn't.

As you are fully aware, Ron Paul is very easy to figure out... just read his stuff. I simple encourage new people to learn about Ron by reading what he writes.

[sailingaway]

I'd really be interested in seeing that. I'm skeptical.

I wouldn't doubt that he said something like what sailingaway said, that corporations aren't persons. But that's just stating a fact that, taken literally, no one disagrees with. But if he actually came out against our right to incorporate, that would really surprise me.

This isn't about the right to incorporate. It is more about whether they are people in their own rights or manage property with derivative rights from shareholders.

[AlexMerced]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmJL6PvlQUI

[RabbitMan]

I also remember either hearing/reading something from him saying he was against Corporate Personhood, something relating to law-suits IIRC. I think he said it sheltered people from individual responsibility, allowing them to shift blame, whereas in a society that covets the individual this simply can not occur. But I could be wrong. I'll look for it soon.

[specsaregood]

I also remember either hearing/reading something from him saying he was against Corporate Personhood, something relating to law-suits IIRC. I think he said it sheltered people from individual responsibility, allowing them to shift blame, whereas in a society that covets the individual this simply can not occur. But I could be wrong. I'll look for it soon.

that is what i recall as well

[Jay Tea]

I've never understood the anti-corporate sentiment around here.

I'd separate anti-corporate sentiment from anti-megabank sentiment. Most of what you'll find here is probably the latter.

[sratiug]

I can't tell. Are you being sarcastic?

No.

[CUnknown]

Certainly the original intent of the Constitution was not to grant personhood rights to corporations (which didn't exist at the time). When the Constitution talks about people, it's talking about the flesh-and-blood variety. This leads me to believe that Ron would be against corporate personhood.

Ron has also spoken out consistently against corporatism. Corporatism is an anti-free market ideology as much as it is an anti-progressive ideology.

Some Ron Paul supporters support corporations because they support the free-market and the private sector against the government sector. Some Ron Paul supporters oppose corporations because they see that the difference between the government and private sectors is paper thin and growing smaller all the time.

No matter what you think about corporations, I think that we should agree on certain things:

1) Corporations are essential to our way of life and our economy. No matter how much we hate corporations, we have to remember that we want them around! And preferably providing jobs in this country rather than overseas.

2) Corporations have no soul and do not respect human life, animal life, the environment, etc. They exist to make a profit, pure and simple. Goldman Sacs, Haliburton, Blackwater, Monsanto -- some corporations have done some very evil things on a regular basis.

I personally think that corporations should be regulated as little as is required to make sure they don't trample on people's rights, and they should be taxed as little as possible to make sure that they want to provide jobs here. But they aren't people, and they have no right to vote, to free speech, or to donate any amount of money to political campaigns, or to engage in any political activity whatsoever.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[BobDylan]

Thanks for the welcomes guys & the info, I'm reading through everything now. :D

[enoch150]

Corporate personhood refers to the recognition of a corporation as if it were a human, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that.

I don't see anything about corporate personhood in OP's link.

Individuals have rights. Corporations are just the property of a group of people. A group of individuals, just like an individual alone, has the right to, say make political speech and donate to political campaigns.

However corporate personhood allows some people to escape responsibility for their actions. Sometimes individuals inside the corporation, often unbeknown to the the vast majority of stakeholders in the corporation, commit criminal acts. This could be anything from fraud to pollution to selling a product known not to be safe. The individual responsible for the criminal act is often shielded by corporate personhood, escaping personal responsibility, and forcing others (the entire corporation) to pay compensation on his behalf. In other words, corporate personhood means that a corporation is fined when something goes wrong rather than the individual that committed the harmful act being fined or imprisoned.

I suspect Ron Paul opposes corporate personhood laws because of the shielding of liability, but absent corporate personhood laws, would have no problem with allowing corporations donating to political campaigns.

[enoch150]

...

[erowe1]

I'd separate anti-corporate sentiment from anti-megabank sentiment. Most of what you'll find here is probably the latter.

You might be surprised how often some people here insist that the mere existence of corporations is a result of some anti-free market intervention of the state.

[erowe1]

Corporate personhood refers to the recognition of a corporation as if it were a human, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that.

No it doesn't. It includes only some of the rights and responsibilities that go along with that, such as having a bank account, owning land, and taking on debt. But corporations can't vote, get married, or tons of other things individuals can do.

[DaveH]

Page 29 of Liberty Defined under the subject of Campaign Reform:

This isn't all he says but one quote:
"Those who attack the court's decision (he's referring to the courts decision that allows corporations the right to free speech that was denied in McCain-Feingold) say that corporations and unions have no rights of free speech. following the flawed belief that government can regulate commercial speech in advertising.----

-----The notion that political speech and commercial speech are two different entities must be rejected. Speech should not be subject to prior restraints.

Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."

[BrendenR]

You might be surprised how often some people here insist that the mere existence of corporations is a result of some anti-free market intervention of the state.

Corporations are not a legal entity created by the state?

[erowe1]

Corporations are not a legal entity created by the state?

No more than marriages are.

[enoch150]

No it doesn't. It includes only some of the rights and responsibilities that go along with that, such as having a bank account, owning land, and taking on debt. But corporations can't vote, get married, or tons of other things individuals can do.

Legally speaking, would voting and marriage be considered privileges? I hated business law.

[Aratus]

THE (you~know~who) IS HERE???

i think that Dr. RON PAUL likes to

be 100% honest + pro!business!!!

[erowe1]

Legally speaking, would voting and marriage be considered privileges? I hated business law.

I don't know about what the state has to say about it according to its own law, but no, according to natural law, they aren't privileges. People have the right to associate with others and enter such agreements with one another. The only way to have a public policy that eliminates marriage and corporate personhood from society would be to violate our rights by banning those things.

[Xenophage]

Corporate "personhood" is a myth perpetuated by anarchists and socialists.

In the real world, corporations are not granted the same rights as an individual. Can a corporation vote? Can it sue someone for libel?

But this is a confusing topic, because corporations are, in fact, just contractual arrangements between many different individuals. In our upside-down Republic, corporations are treated as somehow *different* entities than the individuals that comprise them. I've heard plenty of people espouse apathy for the shoplifter while condemning pick pockets, as if there is some difference between stealing from a corporation or stealing from an individual.

Corporations are contracts between people. They are an effective means of doing business. They are nothing else. That said, corporations can neither be moral or immoral. Only people can be moral or immoral. Corporations can't be held liable for murder, or vandalism. Only people do that stuff.

There exists no "corporate personhood" in America today. There does exist an overreaching government. When the government uses its monopoly on force against a corporation, the corporation quite predictably figures out that in order to remain competitive and stay in business they too must leverage government force. This is how we end up with corporatism. Force has been introduced to the market, and the market is no longer free.

[sailingaway]

Corporate "personhood" is a myth perpetuated by anarchists and socialists.

In the real world, corporations are not granted the same rights as an individual. Can a corporation vote? Can it sue someone for libel?

But this is a confusing topic, because corporations are, in fact, just contractual arrangements between many different individuals. In our upside-down Republic, corporations are treated as somehow *different* entities than the individuals that comprise them. I've heard plenty of people espouse apathy for the shoplifter while condemning pick pockets, as if there is some difference between stealing from a corporation or stealing from an individual.

Corporations are contracts between people. They are an effective means of doing business. They are nothing else. That said, corporations can neither be moral or immoral. Only people can be moral or immoral. Corporations can't be held liable for murder, or vandalism. Only people do that stuff.

There exists no "corporate personhood" in America today. There does exist an overreaching government. When the government uses its monopoly on force against a corporation, the corporation quite predictably figures out that in order to remain competitive and stay in business they too must leverage government force. This is how we end up with corporatism. Force has been introduced to the market, and the market is no longer free.

The language of citizens united was troubling on this point, actually. That is why the issue came back to life.

[enoch150]

Corporate "personhood" is a myth perpetuated by anarchists and socialists.

In the real world, corporations are not granted the same rights as an individual. Can a corporation vote? ...

As per the Constitution, voting is not an individual, inalienable right.

The 14th amendment protects male citizen voters over age 21.
The 15th amendment says voting can't be denied on the basis of race.
The 19th amendment says voting can't be denied on the basis of sex.
The 23rd amendment grants the right to vote for President to residents of D.C.
The 26th amendment grants the right to vote for citizens over age 18.

The fact that corporations can't currently vote says nothing about corporate personhood rights because the privilege to vote is not recognized as an inalienable right. Currently, voting is a privilege of citizens over 18. Corporations are not citizens.

[kusok]

Bump.

Question came up: Why hasn't Ron Paul authored an amendment to end Corporatism/corporate Personhood?


(there is one good response on 4th page, but need more)

Thank you,

[ronpaulitician]

Two words: Ralph Nader (http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha)

"Ron Paul has always been anti-corporate, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts," Nader says.

[cdc482]

Hello. I'm new to Ron Paul but, recently I ran across this page here: link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Cloak_And_Dagger/ron-paul-presidential-exploratory-committee_n_853566_85755862.html) And they claim that Ron Paul is a pro-corporate type person, is this true?

Hell no!
Against the bailouts and against the Fed. What other presidential candidate can say that?

[kusok]

Two words: Ralph Nader (http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha)

I understand all that, and good quote, thank you, but... it doesn't answer my question above. Any input on that anyone?

[kusok]

Guys, please note, this is an older thread, but a new question which is why I searched and bumped this is:

"Why hasn't Ron Paul in 20 years not authored an amendment to end corporate personhood?"

Thank you for any thoughts,

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul, "obviously corporations are not people".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTM8zc9jME

[Tod]

Here is Ron Paul discussing corporate personhood after Romney's thing this summer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-xFexgH76g

[angelatc]

Guys, please note, this is an older thread, but a new question which is why I searched and bumped this is:

"Why hasn't Ron Paul in 20 years not authored an amendment to end corporate personhood?"

Thank you for any thoughts,

Because there's really no such thing as corporate personhood. Why hasn't Dennis Kucinich not authored an amendment to end union personhood? Unions have the same rights and responsibilities that corporations get, except that union dues are tax deductible. So they actually have even more perks.

Just go back to the Daily Kos already, troll boy. It is absolutely amazing that you and yours never have a single independent thought. Liberalism is a hive minded philosophy, based on greed and lies apparently.

[kusok]

Because there's really no such thing as corporate personhood. Why hasn't Dennis Kucinich not authored an amendment to end union personhood? Unions have the same rights and responsibilities that corporations get, except that union dues are tax deductible. So they actually have even more perks.

Just go back to the Daily Kos already, troll boy. It is absolutely amazing that you and yours never have a single independent thought. Liberalism is a hive minded philosophy, based on greed and lies apparently.

Just a note:
you're talking to someone who donated about $1'000 to Ron Paul's money bombs, brochure mailings etc. Various donations screeshots were posted on this forum as well, such as:

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb235/kusokosla/Picture6-1.png

The only Kos I know is Josh Koscheck... a UFC fighter.

Anyway, back to topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

I'm still unclear, you say there is no such thing, but ^^^ clearly there is something. I'm just trying to understand this thing, nothing more. The reason is someone brought this up on another forum as means of attacking Ron Paul, and I'd like to give a coherent response, so I came here for ideas from the more experienced Ron Paul supporters.

[Aratus]

goto ANY of the murray hill is running for public office threads i recently bumped, or better yet, i may have to bump about five of 'em again...

[twomp]

Because there's really no such thing as corporate personhood. Why hasn't Dennis Kucinich not authored an amendment to end union personhood? Unions have the same rights and responsibilities that corporations get, except that union dues are tax deductible. So they actually have even more perks.

Just go back to the Daily Kos already, troll boy. It is absolutely amazing that you and yours never have a single independent thought. Liberalism is a hive minded philosophy, based on greed and lies apparently.

So not agreeing with you on corporate personhood makes Liberalism a hive minded philosophy based on greed and lies? I happen to be a "liberal" too and I don't think a company or a union should have the same right as people. Here are some examples of why not:

"Dow Chemical in a case it took to the Supreme Court asserted it has Fourth Amendment privacy rights and could refuse to allow the EPA to do surprise inspections of its facilities. J.C. Penney asserted before the Supreme Court that it had a Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from discrimination -- the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to free the slaves after the Civil War -- and that communities that were trying to keep out chain stores were practicing illegal discrimination. Tobacco and asbestos companies asserted that they had Fifth Amendment rights to keep secret what they knew about the dangers of their products. All of these attempts to obtain human rights for corporations were successful"

Here is a simple explanation of corporate personhood so your simple mind can understand:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249055/september-15-2009/the-word---let-freedom-ka-ching

I seriously hope Dr. Paul isn't supportive of corporate personhood because I feel it is one of the biggest causes of corruption in our government today. We as "people" can only donate $2,500 but "corporations" can donate as much as they want because money is considered speech.... Just look at President Obama and Mitt Romney's donators and you'll quickly realize the "people" who are they're biggest contributors are ...... corporations .....

I'll look up more info on Dr. Paul but if he really is for this, I doubt I can vote for him. I guess that's just me being "liberal".

[Aratus]

Hello. I'm new to Ron Paul but, recently I ran across this page here: link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Cloak_And_Dagger/ron-paul-presidential-exploratory-committee_n_853566_85755862.html) And they claim that Ron Paul is a pro-corporate type person, is this true?

are you THE bob dylan people have heard about? can we say filibuster? either version!!!

MURRAY HILL INC. wanted to run for congress a while back and it looked like they might.