I’ve known too many folks on welfare and I could never understand justifications for cuts. I think the build of rhetoric, the image of “the welfare queen” is so fixed in the American psyche that facts can’t break through it.

====

 No. I mean the strength of corporate personhood is unique to the USA.This https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/ is what started the US view of corporations as citizens with full rights.

=====

 Corporations have been around a LONG time but never viewed as “people” in quite such a literal interpretation as the USA does things.It’s weird.

=====

 You’ll notice the UK’s view of corporate personhood is positively tepid in comparison to how the USA does “Corporations are people too”.

—-

  Each country has a different set of historical precedents in their own law books, which results in distinctly different interpretations under their laws.US corporate law is not UK corporate law. China litigates differently. etc.

=====

 But, the USA isn’t considered the best (perception) place to run a corporation from.We make it _easy_ though. I think India is one of the hardest to start a corporation in if I remember right but that was 20 yrs ago.

=====

 Corporate personhood in MOST countries acts to LIMIT the power of corporations, not to enhance them.That doesn’t stop multinational corporations from doing what they do of course but limitations depend on which jurisdiction they are sued in.You’ve inspired me to research more though.Evolution of corporate law: a cross-country comparison
K Pistor, Y Keinan, J Kleinheisterkamp, MD West 2002Going to read up.2. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS: SELECTION OF COUNTRIES Our analysis begins with the first enactment of general corpo- rate statutes and traces the development of corporate law until the end of the 20th century. The beginning of the period is marked by the enactment of the Code de Commerce in France in 1807.This code, along with other Napoleonic codes, was subsequently en- acted in many parts of Europe and thereafter was transplanted to Latin America and parts of Africa. In the United States, New York was the first state to enact a corporate statute in 1811, which was limited in application to manufacturing companies, followed by New Jersey in 1816. Delaware’s corporation law, which has come to dominate in the United States, was enacted in 1883. In England, codification of corporate law began in 1844.The revised and first comprehensive companies act of 1862 became part of a package of codified common law that was later transplanted to British colo- nies. In Germany, the political development delayed codification for much of the 19th century. Prussia enacted a corporate law in 1843. In 1860, the General Commercial Code for all of Ger- many- including Austria-was enacted,

====

  What’s fascinating is that, if I’m not mistaken, I *think* Delaware 1883 corporate law BACK-TRANSFERED to the UK, with aspects of US Common Law influencings its originator but not replacing it.That would explain why there are SOME similarities between UK corporate personhood and US corporate personhood but they went in much different directions. In short, we started it as it we know of it.

=====

 Ah ha. 1930 Delware. That’s when Delaware (USA) shifted control from shareholders to directors.

=====

 USA is an example of the most flexible of flexible. If you incorporate in Delaware USA itself, it’s probably the only place on the PLANET where “All offices may be held by a single person who also can be the sole shareholder.”

=====

  Here is a clear example where “CORPORATIONS R PPL 2” is simply NOT how it works worldwide.“The appraisal right as it has developed in the United States should be distinguished from the mandatory appraisal of merger transactions under EU and the corresponding national laws of Germany, France, and England. In the latter case, any merger transaction triggers a mandatory appraisal and minority share- holders are bound by the outsider appraisers’ assessment. “

======

 Short story:In the USA, Shareholders are basically POWERLESS since 1930. Directors have control.Everywhere ELSE in the world it seems that SHAREHOLDERS still hold power in the corporation.Appeals to “invisible hand of the market” implying shareholder control will fall on my deaf ears. 🙂

======

 Even if you’re bored, I’ll still use this as sticky pad for notes as I read as I’d been meaning to do a cross-country comparison for a long time.Now I’m at:
“4.2. Judicial Recourse” – this is where personhood and courts will show its distinctions.

======

  It’s not. But we make it easy to start and maintain control. It depends on industry of course. But $500 and a few friends and if you’re in a non-regulated industry, you’re good to start.Plus there’s a wealth of non-corporate options which offer “less personhood” but some, such as LLC. and are cheaper and even simpler.I do the cheapest of all. Fictitious name. $50 every 5 yrs and it offers me “social protections” – totally imaginary – I can create bank accounts and all kinds of amazing things – and nobody has to know “it’s me” ’til it gets to IRS level.

=====

 back in 2013 I had a bit of fun. I wrote a poem using Fictitious names. At $50 a pop and I had it at the time to waste.My favorite was: I’m legally SOMEBODY that is owned by NOBODY.

=====

Also, SOMEBODY owns KENNETH E UDUT.I also trolled the database. Then AND STILL TODAY, when you do a search, it says “FICTITIOUS NAME SEARCH” in the input box.So what did i do?

I registered “FICTITIOUS NAME SEARCH” as a company. So simple.

===

Not saying who though. Only NOBODY knows.

=====

  In the end, I made a long chain that disassociates EVERYTHING from the person typing here right now.It’s all a legal fiction and that’s the point of this poem that wasn’t all that expensive.I also operate a working business but I had do some poetry as I’m not big on business stuff. I do it ’cause it works ok for income but it’s not my cup of tea.

=====

 My point is: the way we do corporate personhood in the USA is weird and it is a joke.

Corporate tears about “oh boo hoo regulation and taxes” is a scam foisted on naive citizens who buy into it and join corporations in condemning citizens who are ACTUAL persons in need of food and shelter and childcare and SHAMING them, instead of shaming the weird joke that is US’ way of doing corporate personhood.

I won’t even go into how you automatically gain access to financial instruments not available at lower levels of income that can MORE THAN mitigate any supposed “tax burden”.

It’s a tax responsibility. We as a nation allow you to make money as a protected corporate entity and in return you give back. It’s simple to me which is why I don’t understand billionaire tears or their non-billionaire defenders.

======