ELECTION 2004  
comments_image -

Corporations Killed Our Commons

Do we consider ourselves capable of and entitled to self-governance? If so, then We the People can start with taking back our government from the corporations.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Election 2004 headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

A California-based group called Friends of the Commons defines the commons as "the vast realms of nature and society that we inherit together and must pass on, undiminished, to our children." Or as many Native Americans put it, to the "seventh generation."

The "commons" is as old as the Earth itself but the term has come into use again today as a helpful way to think about various aspects of nature and society that are increasingly under assault by giant corporations.Vast realms of nature and society – Jane Anne Morris, a writer with the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy, points out that the commons is everything except what we the people choose not to include. In other words, the commons properly derives from decisions made by us, collectively – which presumes democratic self-governance.

It certainly wasn't a collective decision in the enclosures of the 15th, 16th & 17th centuries, when the English commons – lands worked "in common" by peasants for centuries – were fenced so that the landed gentry could pursue single crops for profit, like grain or sheep for wool.

There's a protest doggerel that sums up the morality associated with the commons from that time: "The law locks up the man or woman who steals the goose from the common. But the greater villain the law lets loose, who steals the common from the goose."

The creations of Enclosures, which has been called an old-fashioned word for privatization, helped spark the Cromwellian revolution that deposed and beheaded King Charles I in 1642.

Today, privatization refers to turning over to corporations – now considered the "private sector" – aspects of nature and society previously under the jurisdiction of government – the "public sector," with its authority ostensibly rooted in us, the public. The vast realms of nature and society are being increasingly privatized for the primary benefit of the few. However, it's not about good or bad people, good or bad corporations. It's about who governs.

My thesis here is that the fundamental commons today is We the People's promised authority to govern, the power to make decisions about matters affecting nature and society. There are two historical streams in U.S. history in this regard: one is about the decentralization of power, public decision- making, self-governance – about democracy; the other is about the concentration of power, private decision-making, governance by the few and the corporation as their governing institution. The fundamental impact of corporations on the commons, is the theft of our right of self-governance, a usurpation that enables the myriad harms and assaults on nature and society.

So what is a corporation? Ambrose Bierce describes it in The Devil's Dictionary as "an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." It's called limited liability, a hallmark of the modern corporation, but 'twas not always thus.

During the colonial period, the royal chartered corporations – trading companies like the East India and Hudson Bay Companies – were extensions of the English monarch, institutions not only of commerce but of governance. It was through these corporations and the chartered crown colonies, like Massachusetts Bay and Virginia, that the colonists most directly felt the weight of English control.

So it's logical that once independent from England, the founders put corporations on a short leash, through state-issued charters that defined their purpose, length of capitalization and operation, made shareholders liable for harms done, and prohibited corporations from owning other corporations.

For example, the Pennsylvania legislature declared in 1834: "The corporation is just what the incorporating act makes it. It is the creature of the law and may be moulded to any shape and for any purpose that the legislature may deem most conducive for the general good."

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Election 2004 headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]