Do corporations deserve the same legal protections as people?
This is a conversation from Facebook. My philosopher friend Stephan Pernar joined the group called “Corporations are not people.” In response I asked:
What essential difference does it make whether corporations “are” people, when they are composed of people? Seeking insight into the basis of your position. I’m probably neutral on the subject itself but wary of people “sticking it” to corporations as though that were not “sticking it” to people who own the corporation.
He replied: “My main critique is that corporations are pursuing essentially non-human goals (monetary gain) with super human ability. This leads to a dynamic that skews interactions in favor of the corporations. Also: people should not be able to own people.”
And I answered:
I have grave reservations myself about large corporations, largely around the fact that some of them act too much like governments. I haven’t really sorted out why they do so, but it may be a simple question of the accumulation of power, and what that does to the human soul — and nothing to do with corporate status, per se.
As I recall, the corporate entity as such is largely an artifact of the screwed up tax code. If it weren’t for the goofy tax advantages, most corporations would be companies of one stripe or another. You can certainly get protection from lawsuits and bankruptcy without becoming a corporation. That’s what limited liability companies (LLCs) are about.
In any case, you say that corporations are pursuing “non-human” goals, and cite monetary gain as an example. It seems to me that pursuing monetary gain is one of the most human of goals. How many humans do you know who don’t do this? It’s a small fraction. Are these the only humans deserving of personhood status?... See More
I think I realize what you are saying, of course: That by focusing on money, corporations are ignoring may of the human considerations like compassion and honor, etc. But in this respect, I don’t see a group of humans who call themselves a corporation as particularly different than any other groups of humans. Humans are always looking for the advantage, especially financially, regardless of what they call their group.
I’m not sure what you mean by “people should not be able to own people.” Are you saying that if a corporation has the rights of a person, then it’s like one person (shareholders) owning another (the corporation)? This strikes me as somewhat beside the point, which seems to be something like: Does a group of people (whether they call themselves a corporation or a co-op or a family) ~deserve~ the same political rights that a single individual deserves?
I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s not clear to me that simply because the group calls themselves a corporation, the answer should be no, whereas for other groups it should be yes.
I don’t mean to create too much cognitive mess, here. It’s just not clear to me at all that saying “corporations aren’t people” adds much conceptual clarity to the moral questions involved. Instead, it seems to vilify people who turn their company into a corporation ... which is usually done for tax benefits. And since most people would rather pay less taxes, this doesn’t seem like a good criteria for personhood, either.
I look forward to your thoughts.
And I look forward to yours as well....
Dietary research: Good calories, bad calories
My friend Thomas Ryan Stone has posted an interesting article on his site about the dietary research he and his wife conducted this past year, the low-carb lifestyle they adopted as a result, and the changes they noticed because of it.
I was particularly intrigued by this summary of the ten key conclusions in Gary Taubes’s book Good Calories, Bad Calories. Based on other information I’ve gleaned over the years, and what I’ve observed in my own dietary changes, I’m inclined to agree with these.
1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.
2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis — the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars — sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically — are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.
4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not over-eating, and not sedentary behaviour.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.
7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance — a disequilibrium — in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism. Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this balance.
8. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated — either chronically or after a meal — we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.
9. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.
10. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
I rarely have time to read books lately, so I’m especially appreciative of good summaries like this. 
Marco Rubio looks like a very interesting young politician
Thanks to Andrew for the heads-up about this guy. Judging from this video, he seems to be well-spoken, classy, and promoting values I can agree with.
Suffering as a form of spiritual guidance
In response to my post on the significance of suffering, Andrew ends his insightful comments with:
So in that sense I think the issue of suffering is important: I think denials of it lie at the root of many problems.
I do wonder, though, if this gets at what you are talking about. I sense you may be referring to something more.
Good points. And yes, I am groping for something more, here.
In a nutshell, it’s this: I have come to the view that suffering, if you respond to it correctly, will open you to a sense of deep and profound connection with the world.
Responded to incorrectly, suffering will cause you to close and pull inside.
Responded to correctly, you have no choice but to open to it, feel the emotions at a deep level, and allow your conceptions of the world — your ideas of separateness, isolation, ego, and the many neuroses they carry with them, such as depression and anxiety — to fall away.
I’m describing it in conceptual terms, but it is an experiential observation. It’s not something I’ve arrived at by thinking, but by doing it over and over and observing the results.
When I feel fear or pain, and I surrender to it completely, and I feel the emotions fully, I fall out of my self and am left with a sense of openness and connection to the world that feels transcendental.
Is it possible to feel that openness and connection without suffering first? Probably. And I envy anyone who has that opportunity, however rare. (Or maybe it’s what we all feel as infants? I’m not sure.)
But mostly I look around and I see people who have suffered (and responded well to it) displaying this openness. And I see people who have suffered (and not responded well to it) displaying closure and stunted spiritual growth.
Nobody experiences life without suffering, so the question is: do you allow it fully into your experience, allow it to transform you, to teach you, to open you? Or do you close and try to withdraw from it?
And to me that’s what it means to acknowledge the significance of suffering — to open to it and allow it to transform you. Respond to it like a teacher, or a form of corrective feedback, or a therapy. If you don’t do this, then you miss the greatest spiritual lesson life has to offer.
So I guess what I’m saying is the complement to what you’re saying. You said that denials of suffering lie at the root of many problems. And I’m saying that fully embracing your suffering, when it inevitably happens, gives you the most profound opportunities for aliveness and growth.
I need to say more about what is means to embrace suffering. I don’t mean wallowing in self-destructive thinking, or moping around depressed, or developing a new identity for yourself as “someone who suffers.”
What I mean is a very specific way of being present with the emotions (learning to locate and be present with them in your body but not getting caught up in thinking about them) and then learning to feel them in a very pure and intense way, so the emotion can move through you freely rather than getting trapped inside.
This ties in with another post I hope to be able to write soon, about how best to respond to pain and fear. Coming soon....
On the significance of suffering
Peter’s reply to The Invitation reminded me of a conversation he and I had several years ago, which had prompted me to write my post on Buddhism and Suffering.
In that post, I concluded:
So to me, the case for the significance of suffering, once we look at it closely, seems overwhelming.
Does this mean we resign ourselves to suffering, or become taciturn? No, but it does suggest that there are whole areas of life that we may be blind to, and controlled by just the same, if we don’t consciously acknowledge their significance and respond to them appropriately. I find Buddhism helpful in doing the latter.
I would expect this to be a somewhat controversial or at least interesting claim, particularly for anyone with a background in Rand’s ideas. But six years later, the post still has no comments — so I’m dragging it back onto my home page, with this post.
What do you think?
UPDATE: See related previous discussion following my post Does Suffering Build Character?
The Invitation
by Oriah
It doesn’t interest me what you do for a living. I want to know what you ache for and if you dare to dream of meeting your heart’s longing. It doesn’t interest me how old you are. I want to know if you will risk looking like a fool for love, for your dream, for the adventure of being alive.
It doesn’t interest me what planets are squaring your moon... I want to know if you have touched the centre of your own sorrow, if you have been opened by life’s betrayals, or have become shrivelled and closed from fear of further pain.
I want to know if you can sit with pain, mine or your own, without moving to hide it or fade it or fix it. I want to know if you can be with joy, mine or your own, if you can dance with wildness, and let the ecstasy fill you to the tips of your fingers and toes without cautioning us to be careful, to be realistic, to remember the limitations of being human.
It doesn’t interest me if the story you are telling me is true. I want to know if you can disappoint another to be true to yourself. If you can bear the accusation of betrayal and not betray your own soul. If you can be faithless and therefore trustworthy.
I want to know if you can see Beauty even when it is not pretty every day. And if you can source your own life from its presence. I want to know if you can live with failure, yours and mine, and still stand at the edge of the lake and shout to the silver of the full moon, “Yes.”
It doesn’t interest me to know where you live or how much money you have. I want to know if you can get up after the night of grief and despair, weary and bruised to the bone, and do what needs to be done to feed the children.
It doesn’t interest me who you know or how you came to be here. I want to know if you will stand in the centre of the fire with me and not shrink back. It doesn’t interest me where or what or with whom you have studied. I want to know what sustains you from the inside when all else falls away. I want to know if you can be alone with yourself, and if you truly like the company you keep in the empty moments.
Thank you, Johann.
John Mackey on Conscious Capitalism
John does an excellent job, here, of explaining the theme he’s been promoting in recent years.
I particularly like what he conveys in the first few minutes. I’m more ambivalent about the idea of businesses having “responsibilities” to the community, since it seems one-sided to me; it is not clear to me that businesses have any more obligation to the community than communities have to businesses. So why emphasize one over the other?
At the same time, I do think that if I owned a business such as Whole Foods, I would be looking for ways to use our massive influence to have a good impact not only within the direct sphere of our business (our customers, employees, owners, etc.), but also on the communities in which we operate.
What do you think?
Moving to Belgrade
This Saturday I am relocating to Belgrade, Serbia.
I’ll be checking just two items when I board the plane: (1) my guitar and (2) a suitcase with my belongings. Today I put my remaining possessions in boxes, and tomorrow those boxes go in a storage facility here in Carson City.
Why Belgrade? Overall I’m in a significant life transition. Kathy and I are recently divorced (amicably, remaining close friends and business partners) and now seems like a time to see what the world has to offer that may be different, meaningful, and exciting.
A few years from now, I’d love to be remarried and starting a family. In the interim, I’m going to spend time getting to know a new culture (or variety of cultures) in Eastern Europe, participating in some of the pro-Rand and pro-freedom movements in the area, and making new friends.
Eastern Europe is a favorable destination because it is relatively more receptive to American values (when they show up) and because my friend Stephen Browne has been kind enough to connect me with his network of friends in the area.
Bulgarian publisher Kalin Manolov, for example, has recently published a Bulgarian translation of Atlas Shrugged, and he’s invited me to give a short talk to his new Ayn Rand Society on the 21st. So I’ll be spending time in Sofia that weekend.
Fortunately, I can continue to run Atlas Web Development from anywhere that I have an internet connection, so I’ll maintain the same professional activities I’ve been pursuing in the United States.
My plan is to rent an apartment in Belgrade, and use that as my office and home base for exploring other areas on the weekends. I’m also planning to start a travel log, for those of you who’d like to keep up with my adventures. I’ll post an announcement here once I do.
See you on the other side.
Reason TV interviews Atlasphere founder Joshua Zader
The interview, titled “Dating in the Atlasphere,” was actually conducted in August 2008, but they’ve waited a while to publish it as part of a long series of interviews about Ayn Rand’s legacy.
From Reason TV’s summary:
Joshua Zader’s intellectual relationship with Ayn Rand began as it does for so many, during his college years. He then blazed a trail uniquely his own among Rand admirers by creating The Atlasphere—an online networking and dating site for the fans of Rand’s novels with particular emphasis on The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Zader found inspiration in Rand’s portrayals of independence and integrity, saying: “Rand’s ethical vision was really one where we want to create a win-win world for everybody, and that there shouldn’t be conflicts of interest among rational people if you’re using an ethical system where everybody is treated as an end in himself.” Zader has seen the real life impact of Rand’s ideas through his work on The Atlasphere, which currently boasts over 19,000 members.
Zader discusses the some finer points of Rand’s thought and novels, her supporters, her detractors, and her continuing impact. As a student of Buddhism, Zader explores how her ideas relate to what may seem like a conflicting view of the world. Zader: “Sometimes I see Buddhism as a set of practices in search of a philosophy, in an analogous way that Objectivism could be seen as a philosophy in search of a set of practices.” Joshua Zader blogs at Mudita Journal.
Approximately 10 minutes. Joshua Zader was interviewed by Ryan Seals, filmed by Alex Manning and edited by Hawk Jensen.
I felt Ryan Seals did a good job of coming up with interview questions. I remain grateful for his creativity in suggesting topics to explore.
I will be very interested to hear how other Objectivists respond to my comments about Objectivism and Buddhism, which are bound to be controversial, at least in some circles.
What do you think?
Nathaniel Branden is highly recommending the Lifebook program by Jon Butcher
Nathaniel Branden sent the following message to members of his announcement list:
It is my great pleasure to introduce to you a man and a program of stunning originality and practical results. The man is Jon Butcher and his program is Lifebook.
Lifebook launches you into its world by inviting you to deeply examine 12 separate aspects of your life that, in reality, are not separate at all.
In each category you are stimulated and inspired to clarify your beliefs, identify your goals and define what needs to be done to actualize them. You capture and document your thoughts and feelings along the way using the Lifebook software.
This step-by-step, highly structured process results in your own, self-authored Lifebook — a detailed description of the life you want to live and a strategic plan to guide you as you move toward it.
Although it does borrow from my work, this program is not psychotherapy. It is about self-actualization. As you work through the 12 categories, you get to know yourself in inspiring and challenging new ways. Consciousness, energy, and self-responsibility rise together. The future is experienced as unobstructed. You are witness to your own transformation.
The Lifebook Program is a 4-day seminar experience, held monthly in Chicago. Normally $2995, Lifebook has agreed to extend a $1000 savings to admirers of my work. (For the record, I have no financial stake in this offer — I pass it on to you because I believe you will find it to be a truly extraordinary experience, as I did).
To learn more about this special offer, please CLICK HERE.
I simply cannot recommend this program highly enough. If you wish to become the author of your own life, Lifebook may be exactly what you have been waiting for.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Branden
If any of you have been to one of these seminars, I would be very interested to hear what you thought.
