Just eight men own as much wealth as 3.6 billion people–about half of the world population. In the United States, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than half of everyone else. Amassing this kind of wealth, and therefore power, in a few hands could not occur apart from the private corporation. This seems inequitable to many people, but it is not new. It would have seemed inequitable to the Founders of this nation too. They recognized that the corporation essentially is a tool to enslave the masses. They fought the Revolutionary/American War, in part, to free themselves from the private corporation—the East India Tea Company. The company rose to account for half of the world’s trade. The company subjugated the colonists economically and the Colonists’ response to it was the Boston Tea Party and then the War.
After the War, the Founders of this nation addressed this issue, and others, through the Title of Nobility Clauses (anti-nobility clauses) in the Constitution to prevent economic slavery from reoccurring through the private corporation. The nobility of the British empire also were aware of the excesses of the private corporation and big government. Lord Acton captured the sentiment of the Founders in his statement that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. History supports his claim.
Government needs to be decentralized and economic/business activity needs to be decentralized too. The private corporation, which is a fictional creation of the government, limits liability, provides for a perpetual existence, and provides a mechanism that allows wealth, and therefore power, to concentrate in a few hands, unnaturally. Each of those characteristics works counter to individual liberty and the proper purposes of government. The proper purpose of government is to hold people accountable for their actions, not to allow people to escape responsibility for their misconduct through use of the corporate form. The private corporation is just another way for the government to redistribute wealth and power to the elite. Redistribution of wealth to the elite, or even the poor, is not a proper function of government.
The proper economic system is private enterprise, i.e., through individual merit, not corporate enterprise, capitalism, socialism, or communism. Venezuela, where people are starving to death, is a typical example of the consequences of socialism and communism. History indicates that when monopolies are broken up, economic activity flourishes. The break-up of Standard Oil, AT&T and the Bell Telephone Company are useful examples of that effect. The loss of the Netscape browser and the Tucker automobile company because the anti-trust laws were not enforced as written are typical examples of mega private corporations suppressing productive economic activity and innovation. Banning the private corporation would be a tremendous engine for economic growth and stability and personal responsibility, achievement, and innovation. Wealth obtained through the use of force, including the government, is counterproductive and oppressive to the masses.
President Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex. It couldn’t exist but for the private corporation. It demands to be fed massive amounts of money from the federal treasury and it advocates for war. It is a threat to the well-being of this nation’s citizens and people throughout the world. I have observed that catastrophic environmental damage occurs through the private corporation where it otherwise would not have. If the “bottom line” favors polluting, corporations pollute due to the limitation-of-liability shield. Much legislation, including that which allows for H1-b visas and O-1 visas, is passed to promote the interests of the corporation. Additionally, currently there is no such thing as a “free press” as referenced in the Constitution—at least not as the Founders understood that term. Essentially, only the decision-makers in the private media corporations currently have a “free press.”
Many years ago, Congress provided at least a partial remedy by passing the Sherman Antitrust Act to address the excesses of the “robber barons” of the mid to late 1800s, but the big government courts refuse to enforce it as written. The courts enforce other Acts of Congress as written; in fact, judges openly state that they must enforce statutes as written unless it would be illogical to do so. Judges do not claim that enforcing the Sherman Act as written would be illogical. Judges say only that they don’t want the Act to have the expansive affect that it would have if they did so. Congress has the prerogative to determine the affect of legislation, not judges. History has repeated. The Judiciary and the Executive must be compelled to enforce the Sherman Act as written to address the modern day “robber barons.”
Enforcement of the anti-nobility clauses would be an effective remedy to address the economic slavery of today through the corporation and government. I would advocate and vote for a governmental structure that favors individuals having their own businesses and to diminish the mega multi-national corporation, which ships American jobs overseas, imports foreign workers under H-1b and O-1 visas, and is a hindrance to economic growth, by requiring the courts to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act. What has Amy Klobuchar done to address the excesses of the corporation? NOTHING. She is part of the problem.