A week or so ago, Sally Lerner posted Christopher Ketcham's piece on the " total weirdness of corporate personhood" and the resolution in the Vermont state senate introduced by Sen. Virginia Lyons (inter alia) to deny corporate personhood via a constitutional amendment.
I found the original text of the resolution at the Vermont government site: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=JRS011&Session=2012 Now I don't see much of the "mainstream press" except the Globe & Mail a couple of times a week. But there seems to have been no response to this move. A google search turns up many hits, on very a heterogeneous mix if sites who share only that (1) they aren't conservative and (2) they're very far indeed from any notion of "mainstream". So, is this resolution so patheticly risible, so utterly Quixotic, that it falls, for all but anti-conservative polemicists, in the same camp as the Forvik Crown Dependency project? [1] A google search (tonight, not last week) limited to nytimes.com turns up nothing. Same for washingtonpost.com save one hit on a blog, referencing the same article Sally posted. Nothing from theglobeandmail.com. Anyone who's read my posts here knows that I regard the emergence and gradual validation of corporate personhood as one of the worst -- no, *the* worst -- development in American polity ever, slavery only excepted. But slavery already existed in '76 and in '89 and was a powerful, global economic and political force. And we managed to do away with it. We contrived corporate personhood, inflicted upon ourselves and continue nourish its exfoliation. So I was surprised that no one commented on Sally's post. Is Sen. Lyons' effort so hopelessly naive that it isn't even worth the plutocrats' time verbally to knock her about a bit? - Mike [1] See http://www.forvik.com/ I knew this guy 25 years ago when he was an exceptionally talented metalwork designer, sculptor and blacksmith. Under the crank appearance, there is a very real political motive, based on what may well be a valid historical justification. But since both political "face" and vast oil revenue is involved, I imagine that prevailing opinion will say that it has to be ignored, subverted or, failing that, quashed. Similarity to Virginia Lyons' resolution isn't obvious but it grows on me as I think about it. -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. /V\ [email protected] /( )\ http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
