---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:02 AM Subject: "corporate person" To: [email protected] http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=jzMF2I1nW-8#! A "corporate person" - an entity that is not born - does not die - is neither male nor female - doesn't need safe food or clean water - and cannot be put in prison - yet enjoys many of the same constitutional rights that you and I do. They're now a super person. ps : found via Fleming's post -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
aren't they called commons? On 16/11/11 02:00, Patrick Anderson wrote:
Why are we unable to create corporations that align with our goals?
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- NOT sent from a flippin' "smart"phone - 'cause I like birds...
Hmm... But commons don't have personhood. And why don't common outperform and replace the corporations? If it is because of government intervention, then why can't we make CORPORATIONS that align with our goals? On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:10 PM, mp <[email protected]> wrote:
aren't they called commons?
On 16/11/11 02:00, Patrick Anderson wrote:
Why are we unable to create corporations that align with our goals?
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- NOT sent from a flippin' "smart"phone - 'cause I like birds...
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
We need to make corporations that align with our goals so we can take advantage of the governmental handouts and intervention given to these entities. But something is stopping us... Why does every attempt to do the right thing either morph into another head of the evil beast or just fade into insignificance? What is it about being evil that makes corporations so successful? Why can't 'good' corporations succeed? And when I mean succeed, I mean replace the Monsanto/Con-Agra/Pepsi filth that is murdering our mother Earth.
Corps turning "evil" may result when personal ethics meet opportunity. In ordinary life-it's easier to "be good." "Evil" behavior is severely sanctioned-there is transparency in the local family & community-plus few opportunities exist that offer large gains wo much risk. Many Corporations probably start off well-intentioned. If they succeed and grow, the opportunities to cheat expand -then are enabled by Govt intervention, and further by attracting those disposed to greed. A business version of "Power Corrupts and....." Don't most Gangs start off protecting their perceptions of local community interests- then morph into violence, greed & battles for control? Just random thoughts....from Natalie -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Anderson Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:20 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Fwd: "corporate person" We need to make corporations that align with our goals so we can take advantage of the governmental handouts and intervention given to these entities. But something is stopping us... Why does every attempt to do the right thing either morph into another head of the evil beast or just fade into insignificance? What is it about being evil that makes corporations so successful? Why can't 'good' corporations succeed? And when I mean succeed, I mean replace the Monsanto/Con-Agra/Pepsi filth that is murdering our mother Earth. _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
commons do outperform in many aspects, digital commons in info productivity and natual commons in ecological productivity we can create market entities that do that, and many people are doing so, bu CORPORATIONS ain't the right form 4 this see http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Open_Company_Formats ; http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_Market_Approaches On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
Hmm... But commons don't have personhood.
And why don't common outperform and replace the corporations?
If it is because of government intervention, then why can't we make CORPORATIONS that align with our goals?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:10 PM, mp <[email protected]> wrote:
aren't they called commons?
On 16/11/11 02:00, Patrick Anderson wrote:
Why are we unable to create corporations that align with our goals?
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- NOT sent from a flippin' "smart"phone - 'cause I like birds...
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Michel Bauwens wrote:
CORPORATIONS ain't the right form 4 this
I don't think the question is fully concluded. Since corporations are the dominant form, they must have some mechanism that gives them an advantage over all other forms. And maybe we can determine which parts of the corporate form cause it to work against us. If we could separate the parts that give corporations such strength from the parts that cause us such trouble, then maybe we could make a hybrid form that is just as successful, but is also "on our side". Isn't that what "Social Enterprise" intends? Once we figure-out what makes corporations 'bad', then we can create new corporations constrained by a self-inflicted, legally-binding Social Contract to stop them from going awry while being able to stand on their own without charity. Does that proposal sound realistic? Thanks, Patrick Anderson http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
El 16/11/11 12:37, Patrick Anderson escribió:
Isn't that what "Social Enterprise" intends?
Once we figure-out what makes corporations 'bad', then we can create new corporations constrained by a self-inflicted, legally-binding Social Contract to stop them from going awry while being able to stand on their own without charity.
Does that proposal sound realistic?
I don't think so. I agree with Michel's opinion on this. Be need a commons based markets, not capitalist approach. I would suggest to build worker cooperatives rather than try to waste energies trying to fix the unfixable capitalist corporations. Best, -- Franco Iacomella
From: Franco Iacomella <[email protected]> To: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> Cc: Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011, 21:40 Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Fwd: "corporate person" I believe that through radical business restructuring it may well be possible to create more ethical, and environmentally sustainable corporations. In order to do this, we need something like Transfinancial Economics which would be necessary to create closely monitored grants, and interest free loans created by a credible, and transparent funding mechanism to speed up the Green Revolution. This financial stimulus would be created electronically as new non-repayable (and,or repayable) money but in such as way as to avoid any serious inflationary problems, and pressures..... RS, I don't think so. I agree with Michel's opinion on this. Be need a commons based markets, not capitalist approach. I would suggest to build worker cooperatives rather than try to waste energies trying to fix the unfixable capitalist corporations. Best, -- Franco Iacomella _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation El 16/11/11 12:37, Patrick Anderson escribió:
Isn't that what "Social Enterprise" intends?
Once we figure-out what makes corporations 'bad', then we can create new corporations constrained by a self-inflicted, legally-binding Social Contract to stop them from going awry while being able to stand on their own without charity.
Does that proposal sound realistic?
I don't think it takes rocket science to see what makes corporations successfull, they aim to maximise profit at any cost, by ignoring social and environmental externalities; negative ones, by not paying for their cost; positive ones, by not paying for getting it; this ability attracks large amounts of capital to outcompete other forms, and allows them to capture the state, to maintain their advantage, and increasing these natural advantages by legal ones creating artificial benefits. so, you force them to accept externalities, but, if you keep their core DNA intact, they'll always strive to go around such restrictions, thereby necessating constant outside force; so, much better is to change the DNA and not make them profit maximizers apart from this critique as to its effects, what about the equity of the form; is it equitable that the value creators, i.e. workers and enterpreneurs, do not own the means to produce value, and have to sell their labour, to those who do, this also argues for changes into their property DNA, i.e. argues for cooperative forms which do not disown the value creators, Michel On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
Michel Bauwens wrote:
CORPORATIONS ain't the right form 4 this
I don't think the question is fully concluded.
Since corporations are the dominant form, they must have some mechanism that gives them an advantage over all other forms.
And maybe we can determine which parts of the corporate form cause it to work against us.
If we could separate the parts that give corporations such strength from the parts that cause us such trouble, then maybe we could make a hybrid form that is just as successful, but is also "on our side".
Isn't that what "Social Enterprise" intends?
Once we figure-out what makes corporations 'bad', then we can create new corporations constrained by a self-inflicted, legally-binding Social Contract to stop them from going awry while being able to stand on their own without charity.
Does that proposal sound realistic?
Thanks, Patrick Anderson http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
participants (6)
-
Franco Iacomella -
Michel Bauwens -
mp -
Natalie Golovin -
Patrick Anderson -
robert searle