[acb-hsp] Why Corporations Are Psychotic By David Niose

Mon Sep 3 14:11:03 EDT 2012

I don't know how or why I missed this insightful article over a year ago. 
 are corporations Psychotic? should they be "people"?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201... 79
comments share login
Why Corporations Are Psychotic

Created Mar 16 2011 - 6:38am
Senator Bernie Sanders echoed the sentiments of many last week when he
called for a constitutional amendment to repeal the notion of corporate
personhood. This issue jumped into public consciousness last year after the
Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, effectively allowed
unrestrained corporate influence in American politics, based partially on
the idea that corporations are legally "persons" with constitutional rights.
Sanders, in calling for the constitutional amendment, declared: "This is an
enormously important issue, and how it is resolved will determine, to a
significant degree, the future of American democracy."

What is it about corporate personhood that so concerns Sanders and many
others? That question could be answered many ways, but perhaps this is most
concise: Corporations are psychotic.

If corporations are indeed "persons," their mental condition can accurately
be described as pathological. Corporations have no innate moral impulses,
and in fact they exist solely for the purpose of making money. As such,
these "persons" are systemically driven to do whatever is necessary to
increase revenues and profits, with no regard for ethical issues that might
nag real people.

But, you say, corporations are owned and managed by real people, so surely
immoral corporate actions might be inhibited by them? Well, not really.
First of all, the officers and directors who run corporations are actually
duty-bound to act in the corporation's best financial interest, and that
means they are obliged to do whatever they can within the law to make money.
Thus, this fiduciary duty requires corporate management to set aside ethical
niceties when they get in the way of corporate profits. This is why tobacco
companies market their products to kids when they can - only laws
prohibiting such conduct will keep them from doing so.

This is especially true when we are dealing with large, publicly traded
corporations. Whereas a small corporation could have local ownership,
management, and community roots that might resist the drive for profit in
certain situations, publicly traded corporations almost always answer to
institutional investors and have tremendous pressure to produce short-term
profits. The management chain in a publicly traded corporation is
necessarily geared for profit, not ethics.

Thus, the entity is a "person" with a totally self-absorbed psyche, a
narcissistic "person" that has enormous resources to advertise and market
itself to the public, to hire professionals of all types to influence public
opinion, to litigate and lobby as needed, to ruthlessly pursue its goal of
revenue and profit, and to join other corporations and industry associations
in crushing any opposition posed by mere individuals or public interest
groups.

But hasn't it always been this way? Isn't that what capitalism is all about
- corporate interests driving the economy?

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.

Corporate formation was viewed skeptically in those days because
corporations were correctly recognized as dangerous. Unlike sole
proprietorships or partnerships, corporations allow investors to pool huge
sums of capital and pursue profits while remaining immune from personal
liability. Thus, if I own shares of XYZ Corporation and the company breaches
a $10 million contract obligation, there is no chance that I will be
personally liable on the contract. If I own a sole proprietorship or
partnership that breaches such a contract, my personal assets are at risk.

This immunity makes the corporate structure extremely attractive to
investors, even absentee investors, which means publicly traded corporations
can attract enormous amounts of capital, which in turn results in their
wielding great economic power. In modern society where corporations are
widespread and commonplace, this economic power enables them to have great
social and cultural influence, defining to a large degree how we live our
lives and even the values we hold as a society. And of course economic power
easily translates to political power as well.

It wasn't until the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, long after the
framers were dead, that corporate interests began to reshape the social,
legal, and political environment so that their interests became paramount,
far more important to politicians than the interests of ordinary citizens.
Corporate personhood was a key part of this scheme.

Thus, while corporate libertarians are quick to point out that the framers
and other intellectuals of the founding era were wary of excessive
governmental power, they conveniently neglect to mention that concentrated
corporate power was also viewed skeptically. 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.

It's worth noting that libertarians have no right to claim that a
laissez-faire environment would allow unregulated corporate power. Since
corporations themselves are a fictitious creation of government, a true
libertarian environment (with minimal government) would find them
unnecessary and somewhat repugnant. Thus, ironically, at their essence
corporations are a creation of government meddling.

The pathological and narcissistic nature of corporate "persons" is reason
enough to deny them fundamental constitutional rights that should be
reserved for flesh-and-bone persons, but the fact that they also wield
economic resources far in excess of those available to real persons
magnifies the need to restrain them. Author David C. Korten calls the claim
by corporations for constitutional rights equal to those of humans a "legal
perversion," saying that "corporations should obey the laws decided by the
citizenry, not write those laws."

Korten's statement alludes to why this issue is so critical to effective
democracy. Because corporate interests have immense resources that enable
them to participate in lobbying and litigation, they effectively control the
governmental machine. If individual citizens today feel powerless and
cynical about politics and government, who can blame them? Participatory
democracy is not alive and well in America, because pathological corporate
interests have complete control of the system. This is why Sanders's
declaration, that the future of American democracy may rely on the outcome
of this issue, is not an overstatement. What kind of "persons" will control
democracy - corporate or human?

The Tea Party and Corporate Power
The call by Sanders for a constitutional amendment cries out for popular
support, and any mention of populism nowadays calls to mind the Tea Party.
Progressives tend to dismiss Tea Party activists as ignorant and/or deluded,
but we should realize that the Tea Party has a few (very few) valid points.
At a minimum, the Tea Party is correct in saying that American democracy
today would be unrecognizable to the framers.

In their speculation of what the framers would think about today's America,
however, Tea Party activists make the mistake of not considering the
question fully. They focus almost exclusively on the singular issue of
downsizing government, completely ignoring other aspects of modern America
that would grab the framers' attention. Surely, if Adams, Jefferson and
Madison could be magically transplanted to modern America, their actual
assessment of society would be much more comprehensive than critiquing the
tax system and size of government.

For example, surely the aspect of modern society that would first preoccupy
the framers would be our advanced technology, not our governmental
structure. Only after marveling for days or weeks about modern technology,
from flying in airplanes to sending emails, would the framers' attention
eventually turn to government. Then, of course, in analyzing government,
they would certainly assess its expanded role in the proper context, in
light of today's much more complex technological, economic, and social
realities.

Would they feel that government has gotten too big? Perhaps - especially the
military. But it's just as likely that they would conclude that much
government expansion - the FDA, the FCC, the FAA, the EPA, Social Security,
etc. - are logical results of technological and social development. Of
course, all we can do is speculate.

But what the Tea Party ignores is that the framers would surely be aghast at
the enormous power that Americans have ceded to private corporate
institutions. The time-traveling framers would most likely assess American
democracy as being ineffective and Americans themselves as being largely
uninformed, passive, distracted by petty consumption, and incapable of
critical thinking. They would see American politics and society as overtaken
by corporate interests that dictate public and social policy to the private
citizenry.

If only the Tea Party could see beyond its simple "limited government"
mantra to consider such matters, its populist energy and enthusiasm might be
put to good use in challenging the corporate "persons" who own and control
American democracy and society. By fully considering their own hypothetical,
Tea Party activists would find a new outlet for their angst.

You can bet Sanders will be met with much opposition in his call for a
constitutional amendment.  Much of that opposition will have roots, overtly
or covertly, in the corporate establishment that he seeks to tame. Time will
tell which type of "persons" - human or corporate - win this struggle.

Text copyright 2011 Dave Niose

FURTHER READING ON CORPORATE PERSONHOOD:

Joel Bakan: The Corporation - The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power

David C. Korten: When Corporations Rule the World

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/57022
Links:
[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/david-niose
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally
[3] http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/scott-barry-kaufman-phd
[4]
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201103/psychotic-is-not-
the-same-psychopathic
[5] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/99084
[6] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/1062
[7] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/1063
[8] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/adam-smith
[9] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/american-democracy
[10] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/american-politics
[11] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/bernie-sanders
[12] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/capitalism
[13] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/citizens-united
[14] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/constitution
[15] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/constitutional-amendment
[16] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/constitutional-rights
[17] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/constitutonal-amendments
[18] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-actions
[19] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-influence
[20] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-management-0
[21] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-personhood
[22] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporate-profits
[23] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/corporations
[24] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/culture
[25] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/david-korten
[26] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/democracy
[27] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/ethical-issues
[28] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/ethics
[29] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/fiduciary-duty
[30] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/financial-interest
[31] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/impulses
[32] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/influence
[33] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/libertarianism
[34] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/libertarians
[35] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/media
[36] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/morality
[37] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/narcissists
[38] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/narcissm
[39] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/niceties
[40] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/organizations
[41] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/ownership-management
[42] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/participatory-democracy-0
[43] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/power
[44] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/psychosis
[45] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/public-consciousness
[46] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/publicly-traded-corporations
[47] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/real-people
[48] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/senator-bernie-sanders
[49] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/social-dysfunction-0
[50] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/socialism
[51] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/society
[52] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/tea-party
[53] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/tobacco-companies
[54] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/wealth-nations

 are corporations Psychotic? should they be "people"?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201... 79
comments share login
Regards,
Why Corporations Are Psychotic
By David Niose
Created Mar 16 2011 - 6:38am
Senator Bernie Sanders echoed the sentiments of many last week when he
called for a constitutional amendment to repeal the notion of corporate
personhood. This issue jumped into public consciousness last year after the
Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, effectively allowed
unrestrained corporate influence in American politics, based partially on
the idea that corporations are legally "persons" with constitutional rights.
Sanders, in calling for the constitutional amendment, declared: "This is an
enormously important issue, and how it is resolved will determine, to a
significant degree, the future of American democracy."

What is it about corporate personhood that so concerns Sanders and many
others? That question could be answered many ways, but perhaps this is most
concise: Corporations are psychotic.

If corporations are indeed "persons," their mental condition can accurately
be described as pathological. Corporations have no innate moral impulses,
and in fact they exist solely for the purpose of making money. As such,
these "persons" are systemically driven to do whatever is necessary to
increase revenues and profits, with no regard for ethical issues that might
nag real people.

But, you say, corporations are owned and managed by real people, so surely
immoral corporate actions might be inhibited by them? Well, not really.
First of all, the officers and directors who run corporations are actually
duty-bound to act in the corporation's best financial interest, and that
means they are obliged to do whatever they can within the law to make money.
Thus, this fiduciary duty requires corporate management to set aside ethical
niceties when they get in the way of corporate profits. This is why tobacco
companies market their products to kids when they can - only laws
prohibiting such conduct will keep them from doing so.

This is especially true when we are dealing with large, publicly traded
corporations. Whereas a small corporation could have local ownership,
management, and community roots that might resist the drive for profit in
certain situations, publicly traded corporations almost always answer to
institutional investors and have tremendous pressure to produce short-term
profits. The management chain in a publicly traded corporation is
necessarily geared for profit, not ethics.

Thus, the entity is a "person" with a totally self-absorbed psyche, a
narcissistic "person" that has enormous resources to advertise and market
itself to the public, to hire professionals of all types to influence public
opinion, to litigate and lobby as needed, to ruthlessly pursue its goal of
revenue and profit, and to join other corporations and industry associations
in crushing any opposition posed by mere individuals or public interest
groups.

But hasn't it always been this way? Isn't that what capitalism is all about
- corporate interests driving the economy?