|
I've always thought the concept of corporate personhood to be particularly bizarre.
And to expand on what Baraka_Guru has been saying (and perhaps depart from it entirely), no I don't think corporations should have any direct influence on the state. They require means to redress greivances and contend unfair laws or practices -- such means can and do exist in the form of the court system and governing entities such as the FCC or FDA (CRTC would be a Canadian example). If the people believe that these controlling bodies are insufficient or are acting in bad faith, the people can take action to address that. That's where the power belongs -- with the people.
A democratic government exists to protect the good of the people. A corporation exists to make profit. These two ends don't have to conflict necessarily, but they often do. This is why it's important that a government be answerable to the people, and only to the people, and also that a government be able to exert control over corporate bodies. It's the only way to ensure that corporations continue to act in good faith.
You call this a dictatorship. That's a bit alarmist, I think. A dictatorship is a government that is not answerable to anyone. Removing corporate influence from government activities hardly causes that to be the case.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said
- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
|