Comment Re:Relevant? (Score 1) 580
Don't confuse the law with the facts. Monsanto's legal 'personhood' means it can hold title to property, take on debt, and be a party to contracts.
There are also plenty of ways in which corporations _aren't_ treated as persons. In particular, they _can't_ be subject to the same punishments as people--how do you send a corporation to prison? Even a fine imposed on a corporation is really a fine on its investors, employees, and customers.
Which gets to the root of my complaint against the corporation "taking responsibility for this mess". Ultimately, the corporation _can't_ take responsibility. Forcing 'Monsanto' to clean up Anniston would impose the cleanup costs on three groups of people: Monsanto's current stockholders, current employees, and customers. But the people who _created_ the mess--a small group of employees and ex-employees--pay almost nothing.
Now, the argument can be made that that small group of employees and ex-employees doesn't have the billion dollars or so that it would take to clean up the pollution. Therefore, we're going after Monsanto's investors, employees, and customers, simply because they have more money. Well, why stop there? Why not impose some of the cost on, say, Larry Ellison? He certainly has the money.
If the perpetrators of the dumping can't cover the whole cleanup cost, the taxpayers should pay the rest of it--but only after the responsible persons have been sued into utter poverty.
As for the relevance of any of this to Monsanto's current GM food research, the consensus seems to be that it speaks to Monsanto's credibility. I would argue that, whatever U.S. law may say, corporations are _not_ persons in the sense of having moral qualities such as honesty and integrity. Therefore, trying to assess their 'credibility' is a mistake. The statements of a corporation, on GM food or pollution or any other subject, are ultimately statements of people within the corporation. They should be evaluated individually.
There are also plenty of ways in which corporations _aren't_ treated as persons. In particular, they _can't_ be subject to the same punishments as people--how do you send a corporation to prison? Even a fine imposed on a corporation is really a fine on its investors, employees, and customers.
Which gets to the root of my complaint against the corporation "taking responsibility for this mess". Ultimately, the corporation _can't_ take responsibility. Forcing 'Monsanto' to clean up Anniston would impose the cleanup costs on three groups of people: Monsanto's current stockholders, current employees, and customers. But the people who _created_ the mess--a small group of employees and ex-employees--pay almost nothing.
Now, the argument can be made that that small group of employees and ex-employees doesn't have the billion dollars or so that it would take to clean up the pollution. Therefore, we're going after Monsanto's investors, employees, and customers, simply because they have more money. Well, why stop there? Why not impose some of the cost on, say, Larry Ellison? He certainly has the money.
If the perpetrators of the dumping can't cover the whole cleanup cost, the taxpayers should pay the rest of it--but only after the responsible persons have been sued into utter poverty.
As for the relevance of any of this to Monsanto's current GM food research, the consensus seems to be that it speaks to Monsanto's credibility. I would argue that, whatever U.S. law may say, corporations are _not_ persons in the sense of having moral qualities such as honesty and integrity. Therefore, trying to assess their 'credibility' is a mistake. The statements of a corporation, on GM food or pollution or any other subject, are ultimately statements of people within the corporation. They should be evaluated individually.
