Consumer Evaluated Value, Performance, and Compensation
Community should set price and value of product, or determine reasonable compensation for a company’s employees, in the case of high paid employees, typically executive level, who have control of money simply because of claim to ownership of the company and executive decision making powers.
Community should be able to guess the salaries of company workers and executives and there should be some mechanism of civil restructuring that conforms wages and salaries to the current will of the public, and maybe particularly of the corresponding consumer base.
Tools would inevitably be established for the community to measure and easily evaluate performance and value, and do so in a unified manner. The power of currently available computerized networks (such as the Internet) would make it extremely cheap to establish these tools.
End Corporate Personhood, Corporations are not People - Money is Not Speech, it is Valued Property
When you buy goods and services, you are doing so in a willing exchange. One might say that the consumer should know what goods and services they are purchasing. Regardless of whether one should be entitled to know all the goods and services they purchase, one might predict that the consumer may make different decisions about their purchase if they were aware of this information before (or at the time of) the purchase.
Further, if consumers could not only know the goods and services intended for distribution upon purchase, they should also know the work collateral or work value they are also purchasing.
Information could become readily available about the political contributions that are being made, or that have been made, by the organization or its major beneficiaries. Information also could become readily available about the effects of the work or type of work implemented to construct the product.
Using the state as a means of enforcement vs. Public enforcement of consumer information standards.
What are the tools the public might have to enforce information standards that products are “packaged with” or associated with, without the help of an authoritarian state apparatus?
One tool many of us are probably familiar with is the boycott. One might suggest that the consumer community could boycott products until the producers submit to higher information standards and greater transparency. As is true of many boycotts, this task would prove extremely difficult to achieve for a relatively poor and hard working public without access to many raw resources (without having to go through the producers they would intend to boycott). This is very much the situation around the world in current times, especially considering the mainstream cultural and societal value of property rights, and prevalent authoritarian policy enforcing property rights. Boycotting so many products on such a large scale may prove enormously difficult, especially considering the size of the population in current times and the relative inability to effectively coordinate across large segments of the population, although this strategy may actually be possible if a high enough degree of coordination was achieved across large enough segments of the population.
Another tool the public might have would be consumer based labeling practices. If consumers were willing, they may be able to label all products they consume, or at least all those they deem relevant or a highly important selection or products, the method perhaps dependent upon community resources or perceived need. Again, this would prove challenging in current times, due to authoritarian property protection and allocation practices that consider consumer products the property of the producer or generally whomever the producer chooses to give that property (although this is a generalized oversimplified statement about the mechanisms by which producer based property is distributed). There are many state enforced laws that would serve to punish the community for adopting such a strategy and ultimately prevent this kind of strategy from being freely realized, and thus rendering any strategy of this kind ineffective to varying degrees.
If corporate personhood privileges were explicitly banned by state apparatuses (such as constitutional amendment), presumably in coordination with the will of the public, then cases could be made by the community at least pertaining to political speech that is being bought with their money.
Now this is an important distinction to make, and the reason why money should not be considered speech, but rather, property. Speech can be made freely by any individual, and apparently, the mostly unspoken (within the Mainstream Conversation) yet legally accepted trend is that those individuals can amplify their own speech or the speech of others using their own resources to purchase tools to amplify that speech. At what point does an individual or organization own another individuals resources? When the producer asks for additional resources from another individual under the pretense of exchanging the resource for known goods and services, but with the hidden ulterior motive to use those resources for the amplification of political speech. In that case, who should now own the amplification devices used to amplify that speech?
The reason why consumer control over value and compensation was mentioned previously (in the Consumer Evaluated Value, Performance, and Compensation section) is that the transfer of enough resources over to individuals that are coupled with, however do not wholly constitute, the producer organization (such as a large corporation), such that political speech expenses can be made at a much higher capacity than that of the consumer individual (on average), can be essentially viewed as a loophole in the mechanism of value or property exchange that takes place during a purchase (depending on the defined and considerably useful goals of the purchase).
If the organization is not making the political expenditures any more as a result of different pressures, but the resources used to make the organization’s political contributions are now going to particular individuals who presumably purchase political speech amplification resources of their own will (although there would also be extreme pressure to make the same purchase the organization is interested in due the the property and compensation schemes that are prevalent in current times)
The reason why corporations should not be considered people - Corporate decision making structure - Personhood is a dangerous oversimplification
As stated in a previously written article: “
It has to do with the power structure. Corporations are constructed of many people, who work together, presumably in order to benefit themselves. Under this model one might argue that since a corporation consists of persons entitled to full constitutional rights, then the corporation itself should inherit those rights.
However, the decision making structure of the corporation is what makes it unreasonable to assume that it should be entitled all constitutional rights associated with persons. Each individual person has the ability to make decisions for themselves. Only one person or a few people within a corporation have the ability to make decisions within a corporate structure. And not every person the corporation agrees with the decisions that get made. In many cases all the persons comply due to the need to accumulate wealth to stay alive and comfortable in some capacity. If any of the persons disagree with the decision, the one or few decision makers have the ability to remove the dissenting person(s) from the corporation. The non-decision maker persons however, do not necessarily, and in practice very rarely have the ability to remove the decision makers from the corporation or its property.”
Also, if one were to assert that producers, notably that sustain themselves ultimately due to consumer based purchases, were intrinsically coupled with the consumer on this basis, we could say that the decision making structure extends then from the decision makers (regarding resources obtained via purchase) down to the consumer about what to do with the resources. This is especially apparent when the resources that are purchased by the producer using the resources obtained by the consumer purchase are used in ways that are unknown to or intentionally hidden from the consumer, because when the resources are being attributed to a purchase unknown to the consumer, the control regarding how to distribute resources is ultimately taken out of the consumer’s possession.