C. S. Burks, Esq.

All too often I hear nonsensical ramblings from leftist “progressives” clamouring against “capitalism.” These people have declared, and incorrectly so, that capitalism has led to failure; it was capitalism, they say, that led to the financial crisis. Many on the left have the ever-growing erroneous view that capitalism is nothing more than government supporting big corporations at the expense of the working man.

A real capitalist, of course, understands the true workings of capitalism; that capitalism is not, as many believe, the government supporting the special interests of mega corporations. On the contrary, capitalism is the government not supporting the special interests, allowing them to fail or succeed on their own accord.

The most annoying misconception of capitalism is that of the workings of corporations. The left has simply decided to ignore the fact that the corporation is something created by government. In order to form a corporation, one must file with the government; in other words, the very existence of corporations is in itself government intervention into the economic workings of society. Allow me to note that it is not my purpose here to argue for or against the existence of corporations; I’m simply showing the flaws of the anti-capitalist rhetoric that exists.

For the sake of argument, however, assume an economic system where the government does not interfere in the economy. In this system, one cannot file for articles of incorporation with the government, as the government does not interfere with the economy. There is now a fundamental question: can a corporation exist in this society? Clearly, the answer is no. Yes, people can form “companies” and even possibly have some limited liability (though highly unlikely since it would not be in the other party’s best interest) via contractual negotiations, but it is very unlikely that a company could become a legally separate “person.” In this system companies would consist of partnerships and sole-proprietorships.

Such an economic system does not exist; thus, we have corporations. This leads to an examination of corporations. A corporation, at its most fundamental core, is an organisation formed by an individual (owner) or individuals (owners). Assume the latter, a corporation owned by individuals, and assume also that this corporation is a profit-seeking business. Here we essentially have a collective of individuals coming together acting in their own best interests.

In a natural sense a collective cannot have rights, as a collective is simply a group of individuals; it is the individuals within the collective that have rights. The only way a collective can exist is through free individuals wilfully exercising their individual right to assemble as they see fit. A corporation, as with any collective, has no natural rights by virtue of its existence. It is the individuals within the corporation that have natural rights by virtue of their humanity.

Recently there has been much controversy over the US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on first amendment grounds. The greatest front of opposition to the court’s decision comes from the left, while most support, on the other hand, comes from the right and libertarian circles.

Personally, I support the court’s decision. I support the decision not because I support some artificial rights of a corporation (I don’t), but because I support the right of individuals within a corporation to freely make decisions and exercise their natural rights. As stated previously, a corporation is a collective; it is the individuals within the corporation that retain natural rights; this includes the right of individuals to freely assemble themselves and use the funds thereof to support, oppose, or endorse political candidates.

Using this natural-rights basis, corporations are really no different from unions, which, despite McCain-Feingold, had the legal ability to endorse and fund candidates. Likewise, unions, too, are nothing more than collectives—individuals exercising their natural rights to freely assemble as they see fit. So why then should a collective group called a “corporation” be treated differently from a union, another collective group? I expect that is a question the left cannot answer.