Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
In 1780, John Adams succinctly defined the principle of the Rule of Law in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men”. This reflects the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The very foundation of our legal system says that the law should work for us all, not just a select few.
This raises the question of what is a good law that serves the majority of society and what is a bad law that doesn’t serve the majority of society?
This idea is further bolstered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The latter addition of the 14th Amendment as well as the Preamble of the Constitution both reflect the spirit in which this country was founded as set forth in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Clearly, the pursuit of the Rule of Law under the Constitution as informed by the Declaration is a pursuit of the Utilitarian concept of the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action; what is in the best interest of greatest numbers of We the People is in the best interests of the country.
Utilitarianism is a quantitative and reductionist philosophical form. Utilitarianism, however, is not a unified philosophical view. It comes in different flavors with the two primary flavors being Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist philosophical view and rules may never be broken. Like any absolutist view does not take into account that reality occasionally presents situations where breaking a rule results in the greater good. For example, the strong reductionist rule that murder is bad is countered by the exceptional example of murder is not bad if performed in self-defense or the defense of others. This result of practical application is reflected in what John Stuart Mill called Weak Rule Utilitarianism. It becomes apparent that since not all rules are absolutely enforceable when seeking the common good and exceptional circumstances require flexibility in the law, that the Utilitarian pursuit of the Rule of Law must be in Mill’s Weak Rule formulation of Utilitarianism. But is considering the greater good and circumstantial reasons for breaking or modifying rules the best way to judge whether a law is good or bad?
If one considers Kant’s Categorical Imperative – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” – then any law not universally applicable should not be a maxim worthy of being recognized as universal. This is contrary to Utilitarianism in general as well as Weak Rule Utilitarianism specifically, but while Kant’s view takes subjectivity into account when dealing with circumstances it does not take into account that there can be objective differences in circumstances as well. It is part of the judiciaries role as a trier of fact to consider not only subjective differences but objective differences in circumstances in formulating the most equitable and just solution to a case at bar. In seeking to be universally applicable in defining maxims, Kant is an absolutist as surely as Strong Rule Utilitarians are absolutists. As a consequence of reality not being neatly binary in nature and thus not often compatible to absolutists approaches to formulating laws for practical application, what can be done to keep Weak Rule Utilitarianism from degenerating into Act Utilitarianism where actors will seek the greatest personal pleasure when presented with a choice rather than the greater good? Utilitarianism conflicting with the Categorical Imperative? Is there a unitary philosophical approach to evaluating whether a law is good or bad?
The answer seems to be no. If there is no single view, absolutist or otherwise, that leads to a practical system for evaluating whether a law is good or bad, then there is only one option for building a framework for evaluation. That option is synthesis.
Consider that absolutist systems as they are not applicable in reality should be confined to being considered theoretical boundaries rather than practical boundaries. This does not negate the value of considering systems like Strong Rule Utilitarianism or Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but rather puts them in the place of aspirational goals rather than practically attainable goals in every circumstance. Given that Mill’s Weak Rule Utilitarianism can degrade into Act Utilitarianism and that degeneration can be compounded by the number of exceptions there are to a rule, are there ways to minimize the defects of using only Weak Rule Utilitarianism to determine the societal value of a law? What supplements can be made to that framework?
I submit that one such supplement is found in the form of Negative Utilitarianism. Negative Utilitarianism is exactly what it sounds like; the inverse function of Utilitarianism. Whereas Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action, Negative Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number. If one takes both into account in evaluation of the social value of a law (a synthetic approach), the test becomes a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the societal value of overall good consequences, on the other side is the societal value of preventing overall harm. This proposition suggests the following framework for evaluation of whether a law is good or bad.
- How many people benefit from the good consequences of a law?
- How many people benefit from the reduction of harm as consequences of a law?
- Does the benefits from promoting good consequences outweigh the costs of reduction of harm?
- Does the benefits from reducing harm outweigh the costs to the greater good in taking no action?
- Are the net consequences of a law perfectly knowable from either perspective or does the possibility of unforeseeable consequences exist? Can the unforeseeable risks be minimized either by construction of the law(s) to allow for contingencies or by regulating other risks or contributing factors?
- Do solutions from either perspective negatively impact human and/or civil rights? Do those negative impacts outweigh the positive effects to the greater human and/or civil rights of all?
This is but one way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad for society. What are other methods? Are there ways to improve this method? What do you think?
Mike Spindell:
“You actually make my point by agreeing that government has the right to exert control over corporations to ensure a competitive market.”
I dont think that is what kderosa is saying. If government exerts control then it is no longer a competitive market. Government can set rules for commerce which the Constitution does but it does not have a right to ensure a competitive market.
With that thinking we would still be using a horse and carriage. Government doesnt have a right to make a more favorable environment for one company or industry over another. Companies must be free to compete for limited resources and if one company can become the sole source supplier of a good or service then the consumer wins because that company probably provides a good product/service at a good price.
Gene H:
yes it would. But it was doable and could be again. Industry could sort that out by creating cooperative fire companies which are paid for by all insurance companies to reduce costs.
Why should government have a monopoly in fire protection?
Mike Spindell:
I dont think kderosa has called for peace, I did though.
this has been one of the most interesting threads on this blog. This is real point and counterpoint.
So please let that slight pass and continue on in the same vein. You and Gene H are making some good points and kderosa is making some good replies. It is very interesting.
Roco,
A cursory search into the nature of private fire brigades would also yield the reasons why that service was eventually taken public.
Mike Spindell:
I believe fire protection was funded by insurance companies a very long time ago. And with good reason, they are the ones benefitting from protecting their insureds.
So the idea is more than just some libertarian theory, I am pretty sure it was fact many years ago. And indeed a quick look to wikipedia verifies that insurance companies did fund fire brigades.
Almost everything that can be done by government can be done by the private sector more efficiently and as we have seen Constitutionaly than by government.
KDEROSA:
do you know a Prof. Adam Mossoff [sp?]
kderosa,
First, any credit for nonsense is entirely your own.
“We are still quite far away from being able to answer your questions. But once you answer mine we can proceed.”
No, you’ll answer my questions to Roco first. They don’t require special knowledge – which you claim to have – only logic. If you can’t or won’t answer them either, that too is an acceptable response. I’ll give you one more chance to answer the questions before providing the correct answers. Those questions are again:
How do you protect individuals from others without rules that are controls on the behavior of others?
How do you protect the rights of one without rules that apply to all?
I’m perfectly on track, you should answer the questions previously asked and you should get to demonstrating your claims. So far, you’ve demonstrated nothing other than a lack of legal knowledge. “Corporations are merely a group of people acting together under their right to free association. If an individual has the right to do something, then the corporation does as well. Individuals and corporations do not have the right to violate or infringe the rights or other people.” A corporation is much more than “a group of people acting together under their right to free association.” It’s a legal fiction that acts like a shield against liability. While there are legitimate reasons and applications for shielding liability, this legal fiction has been and is being misused by criminal actors to the detriment of the public far too often. Mike Spindell did a fine job of in the deconstruction your nonsense in that regard, but I’d like to further add that even if your assertion about free association were correct instead of a gross mischaracterization of the legal nature of a corporation, when assembled to avoid liability for torts or criminal acts, such an assembly is a violation of RICO statutes.
Now, back on track. Can you answer the two questions above or can’t you? Or are you just unwilling? I’m going to bet unwilling just like your buddy. Because answering those questions is against your corporatist agendas as the answer indicates that not only should businesses be regulated, but they must be regulated to protect both individuals and the common good.
“government has slipped its Constitutional shackles by enticing people like you who are easily swayed by goodies like free healthcare, social safety nets, and free retirement benefits. You gave them theh power to give you these goodies and now special interests have more sway over this more powerful and intrusive government.”
Kderosa,
you made a pleas for civility in discussion and now when it suits you, youve broken civility.
“enticing people like you who are easily swayed by goodies”
That was an ad hominem insult and you know it. you know nothing of me, or my political beliefs for that matter. Indeed there are some areas in which we both agree. however, you have descended to false characterization, in lieu of reasoned discussion and violated your own call for peace.
“the solution is not to trample on Constitutional rights of corporations; the solution is to get the bridle of the Constitution back on government. That may mean taht you will lose some of your goodies. you can’t have it both ways, Mike.”
Show me where in the Constitution corporations are given any rights. That Anton Scalia says so is simply not good enough, since he is demonstrably partisan and a recipient of corporate largesse, not the strict constructionist he makes himself out to be. See Bush v. Gore, 2,000. As for having it both ways:
“Government involvement is not government control. Setting the metes and bounds of commerce is not control.”
You actually make my point by agreeing that government has the right to exert control over corporations to ensure a competitive market. That is not “bridling” their constitutional rights, merely protecting mine. In this long exchange I’ve argued with you civilly and i expected that you would do the same, in light of your prior plea. you have disrupted this civility by both insulting my intelligence and making false assertions about me. In utilizing my SS and Medicare benefits I am merely collecting what is legally due me, just as Ayn Rand did and Mr. and Mrs. Bachman. They are not “goodies” they are law, until abolished, which will not happen.
You not only owe me an apology for breaking your own agreement by insulting me, you need to discuss dispassionately, rather than by using
words with loaded connotations.
“Fire Protection Privatization: A Cost-Effective Approach to Public Safety”
This is not evidence. It is a PDF of a paper written by Libertarians, easily discovered by a brief Google search. This was backed by The Reason Foundation and therefore is lesson a reasoned discussion and more a document whose writers were looking for a pre-determined answer.
““Constitutional citation?”
Madison’s letter to Congess: Veto of federal public works bill (March 3, 1817) Madison was warning Congress that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution was never intended to become a Pandora’s box for special-interest legislation.”
Again an opinion piece. Madison was but one member of the Founding Fathers and here is providing his interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. Without a history of the bill he vetoed and the special interests on either side of the issue, it fails as solid evidence, since I am sure there are many differing opinions.
“As for Pinkerton, see the violence inherent in the early organized labor unions. This violence was not just a problem of the employers.”
Actually, your historical perspective on this is incorrect. There was a general belief, unfortunately shared by the Federal Government, that employees did not have the right to strike. The initial labor protests were non-violent but were met with violence. The Pinkerton’s were brought in to infiltrate the movement, push for violent action to provide the rationale for retaliation and to assassinate individual strike leaders. This is indisputable and James McParland was the chief Pinkerton operative in many instances:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McParland
Lest you think the Wiki history is inadequate please refer to the extensive bibliographic citations provided by the article.
While we’re discussing labor though could you explain to me your opinions as to why if individuals have the right to form Corporations for their benefit, then workers should also have the same free right to form unions for the mutual benefit?
““If this is the case, then would you say in your vision it would be perfectly legal for a Corporation to use any means possible to eliminate competition in its’ market?”
No. No one has the right to violate or infringe the retained rights of others.”
If no one has that right then it would logically follow that Government has a vested interest in assuring that Corporations are restrained from infringing on others individual rights. So then we agree?
“Such massive control of industry has never happen in a competitive free market anywhere at any time.”
If this is the case can you name for me instances where a competitive free market has ever existed in any nation? If you can’t, then you can’t preclude the scenario of my statement. How would you look at OPEC a cartel that effectively controls the Oil industry?
“You are going to claim that it is necessary to trample on (i.e., balance away or cost/benefit away) the retained natural rights of individuals to effect your grand plans for serving society and I am going to demonstrate to you that a) this is not what the founders intended and b) there is no need, in any event, to trample on our retained natural rights to serve society. I will further demonstrate that government retaining our natural rights is not “too high a societal cost[]” which is unproven by you in any event.”
“I am waiting for GeneH to repsond, before embarking on such a large unertaking.”
Your first statement above was an unqualified one that promised to deliver this demonstration, not one conditional on a response by Gene.
I needn’t remind you though that this is a forum and as such our statements are not for the benefit of one particular party, but statements made to the entire body. That you say the undertaking is too long would seem to be belied by your already copious writings. All that I ask is that you deliver the demonstrations and proofs you proffered. Is this an unreasonable request?
kderosa:
who the hell are you? Where did you learn what you know? You didnt learn it at a public or even private university.
Who taught you? What books have you read?
Where did you learn what you know? And out of curiosity how old are you? I am thinking you are either around 30 or you are around 70.
I pray you are 30 and have a bunch of friends as smart as you and as well instructed.
@TonyC, if that’s the way you want to roll TonyC be my guest.
@Mike Spindell
“You understand you’ve just restated exactly what I said, with more verbiage?”
No there is a distinction, you are just missing it.
“Another long restatement of my premise that since they are entities established by law, then it is within government purview to regulate them.”
We don’t diasagree. Companies can be regulated like individuals with Constitutional constraints.
“major Corporate entities have established their trade across many, if not all States and even internationally. any logical understanding of this would recognize that the require Federal regulation because of their interstate commerce ”
This is correct as long as it is within Constitutional limits.
“Begs the question and avoids the issue.”
Not any more than your unsupported assertion does.
“The purpose is nevertheless as I stated they exist to limit liability and that limitation is granted by the State.”
Bankruptcy laws, granted by the state, limit the liability of individuals. Do they forfeit all their Constitutional rights because of this limitation of liability? Then why should corporations?
“However, the larger corporations, whether controlled by an individual or family, limit liability further by their size. This is an obvious statement so I can’t understand why you choose to try to sidestep it.”
It is an obvious statement. It is also an irrelevant statement to the issue at hand. if you think it is relevant explain why and provide support.
“This is not correct and I suspect you know enough to know that. If you want to argue the history of government involvement in our economy and in the control and involvement of our economy by individuals, then you are undertaking a long, ultimately futile argument.”
Government involvement is not government control. Setting the metes and bounds of commerce is not control. This is demonstarted clearly in today’s economy, the government very much wants companies to hire employees and are incapable of controlling the economy to achieve that result.
“The SEC was emasculated and the Fed is under the control of the Banking Industry. There is nothing spontaneous at all about it and that is indeed the problem. ”
Both can and should be abolished.
“Madison’s quote did not envision a process whereby the “people” (who he meant by the people is open to interpretation) do not have the power to render judgment, because their representatives are controlled by the largest factions of power. ”
Assuming this is true, the founers were smart enough to provide for a mechanism to amedn the Constitution. Also, you are putting the cart in front of the horse; government has slipped its Constitutional shackles by enticing people like you who are easily swayed by goodies like free healthcare, social safety nets, and free retirement benefits. You gave them theh power to give you these goodies and now special interests have more sway over this more powerful and intrusive government. the solution is not to trample on Constitutional rights of corporations; the solution is to get the bridle of the Constitution back on government. That may mean taht you will lose some of your goodies. you can’t have it both ways, Mike.
“He also envisioned a “free press” that would inform the “people” but this no longer exists, if indeed it ever did. Without the information to make “informed judgments” the people are rendered powerless.”
The press is as free as it every was. You can go grab a soap box and tell the world all your views on government.
@KiD: Well, since you are a liar, I presume that means I am right on all counts. Thanks for acknowledging that.
@TonyC, you are incorrect on all counts.
@Mike Spindell
“Can you actually demonstrate your assertions, not the manner of merely
touching on individual subjects as you have done leaving inference of an overall belief, but in cohesive, all encompassing demonstration?”
I am waiting for GeneH to repsond, before embarking on such a large unertaking.
“Actually — “A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.””
You understand you’ve just restated exactly what I said, with more verbiage?
“And, “Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons (“people”). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations. Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can “die” when they are “dissolved” either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate ‘death’, when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order, but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter.”
Another long restatement of my premise that since they are entities established by law, then it is within government purview to regulate them. Despite their original creation by an individual State, major Corporate entities have established their trade across many, if not all States and even internationally. any logical understanding of this would recognize that the require Federal regulation because of their interstate commerce and because the Federal government has the establish right to intervene in matter of foreign policy.
“Regardless of whether it is a legal fiction, it is still a free association of individuals at its core”
Begs the question and avoids the issue. Many small corporations are this, The purpose is nevertheless as I stated they exist to limit liability and that limitation is granted by the State. However, the larger corporations, whether controlled by an individual or family, limit liability further by their size. This is an obvious statement so I can’t understand why you choose to try to sidestep it.
“Some partnerships are limited liability.”
Again restating my position as an attempt at refutation. I of course understand the concept of limited partnerships, which is why I addressed partnerships where the individuals are liable.
“Our economy is not run by corporations. No one runs the economy. It is spontaneous order as guided by laws and regulations.”
This is not correct and I suspect you know enough to know that. If you want to argue the history of government involvement in our economy and in the control and involvement of our economy by individuals, then you are undertaking a long, ultimately futile argument. The interactions of great wealth and government go back to the days of our founding and continue today. It is, however, even more controlled by individual interests today then in the past. The SEC was emasculated and the Fed is under the control of the Banking Industry. There is nothing spontaneous at all about it and that is indeed the problem.
“Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false”
Madison’s quote did not envision a process whereby the “people” (who he meant by the people is open to interpretation) do not have the power to render judgment, because their representatives are controlled by the largest factions of power. He also envisioned a “free press” that would inform the “people” but this no longer exists, if indeed it ever did. Without the information to make “informed judgments” the people are rendered powerless.
@Mike Spindell.
“Constitutional citation?”
Madison’s letter to Congess: Veto of federal public works bill (March 3, 1817)
Madison was warning Congress that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution was never intended to become a Pandora’s box for special-interest legislation.
Mind you Madison, at the Constitutional Convention, was all for the building of canals (as proposed by Franklin) and for the general power to grant charters of incorporation (which he himslef proposed). Both proposals were voted down 8-3 and 6-4-1 respectively. February 15, 1791.
And madison, as President, followed the Constuitution when it came time to decide whether that power had been delegated to the federal government. It had not.
See Farand, the records of the Federal Cnvention (1937) (I, 21; II, 615-616, 325; III, 363.
“If solely a State problem [of inerstate crimes]”
It isn’t; see the FBI.
As for Pinkerton, see the violence inherent in the early organized labor unions. This violence was not just a problem of the employers.
“To view fire departments from a cost efficient perspective is not viable, but since you make the statement can you provide evidence of this cost efficiency?”
Fire Protection Privatization: A Cost-Effective Approach to Public Safety
“Could you explain in which instances this infrastructure is unconstitutional?”
The founders apaprently thought all of them were unconstitutional. See above.
“If this is the case, then would you say in your vision it would be perfectly legal for a Corporation to use any means possible to eliminate competition in its’ market?”
No. No one has the right to violate or infringe the retained rights of others.
“If this led to various markets like energy, food, water, manufacturing, etc. controlled by one large entity, would you consider this not the business of government. If it isn’t then where goes the free market?”
Such massive control of industry has never happen in a competitive free market anywhere at any time.
@Mike Spindell: Absolutely correct on the legal status of corporations; as well as LLC and LLP. They should NOT be people because they do not have the liability of people; they can offload all of their cash and assets to people to avoid paying for responsibility, and you cannot incarcerate a corporation or punish it like you can a person. If a corporation kills somebody their only penalty is fines and cash; if a person kills somebody, even a very rich person, they can be sentenced to prison and death.
“I am going to demonstrate to you that a) this is not what the founders intended and b) there is no need, in any event, to trample on our retained natural rights to serve society. I will further demonstrate that government retaining our natural rights is not “too high a societal cost[]” which is unproven by you in any event.”
You made this claim at 8:11am and followed it with 5 further comments, none of which directly demonstrated either proposition a) or b). Can you actually demonstrate your assertions, not the manner of merely touching on individual subjects as you have done leaving inference of an overall belief, but in cohesive, all encompassing demonstration?
@Mike Spindell,
“A corporation is an entity created by an individual, or group of individuals in order to limit their own personal liability, as a result of this entities actions. It is therefore an artificial legal fiction granted by the government.”
Actually — “A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.”
And, “Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons (“people”). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations. Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can “die” when they are “dissolved” either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate ‘death’, when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order, but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter.”
And that’s just from Wikipedia.
Regardless of whether it is a legal fiction, it is still a free association of individuals at its core”
“Despite SCOTUS’ current rulings it, the entity does not have the same standing as an individual and therefore should not have the same rights of an individual.
Actually, it does have the same standing. Not all corporations are limited liability and even those that are merely limit liability to the shareholder’s investment. In this sense individuals are limited liability as well, since their liability only extends to their assets. bankruptcy protection is available to all.
“Now if you want to talk of partnerships, where the individuals do have legal liability, then the entity probably should be treated legally as an individual.”
Some partnerships are limited liability.
“Because corporations are organized under the aegis of the government by necessity, then the government logically should regulate them due to the special status granted. In the alternative, if government with limited powers does not have the right to recognize the creation of corporations as legal entities, then corporations should not be legal or have legal standing.”
Governments are permited to regulate as bound by the Constitution. So regulation cannot extend to infringing rights retained by the people, in this case the rights os freedom of asociation and speech as endhrined in the first amendment.
Finally, if one considers the history of settlement in America and the pernicious role played by British and Dutch corporate monopolies, it is highly doubtful that the founders envisioned an economy run almost exclusively via corporations.
No doubt this was considered by the founders. Madison spoke directly to the issue in the Federalist No. 10 “[f]actions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of destroying the liberty of some factions is worse than disease. Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false.”
Our economy is not run by corporations. No one runs the economy. It is spontaneous order as guided by laws and regulations.