American free speech rights are far more protective than other Western nations. If this were a free speech issue, it's very doubtful anyone could be made to say anything or forbidden from saying anything. You have an absolute right to deny the holocaust or to ask that the queen be fucked. This is a civil rights issue, dealing with how people must be treated. If a baker wants to put up a sign itemizing the people he hates, he certainly could, although he couldn't refuse to serve them.

No it doesn't, and even if it did, that isn't totalitarianism, that is merely one aspect of totalitarianism, and not one that is unique to it. I'm proposing some degree of planning and/or regulation by the state or some other organised socialist body, so there would remain some degree of control or influence over the market by those empowered to do so in business. I'm further proposing international unity in this regard.

Sure, international unity so that no one can escape your regulation because any freedom in the market will be used to thwart what the almighty state has decreed just and fair. Your belief that the state is this benevolent force that will work only to the promotion of the individual is severely flawed. What you should expect to occur is that those vested with the power to control wealth will get incredibly wealthy, which is what you get in capitalism, although with capitalism the power of the state is not utilized to oppress and control the masses.

It's not coincidental that the existence of free markets coincides with free societies generally.

...with capitalism the power of the state is not utilized to oppress and control the masses. — Hanover

Sometimes it is, as in Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile (a military dictatorship in which neoliberalism was first tried out in earnest), and China today. Now don't try and "no true Scotsman" me. As it happens I would also argue that Hitler's Germany was, in practice, compatible with capitalism; the Nazis did not follow through on the "left" fascist anti-capitalist rhetoric. But I'll let that one slide.

And in the UK, liberalization of the economy (financialization) lived alongside social authoritarianism, under Thatcher's rule (it's no coincidence she was a fan of Pinochet). This is the distinction that "free-market" enthusiasts fail to make.

It's not coincidental that the existence of free markets coincides with free societies generally.

Probably not, but I think the two are ultimately independent. Liberal freedoms were surely crucial to the rise of capitalism, but it could be the case that it no longer needs them, as Zizek has pointed out. In any case, in the mid-nineteenth century, European governments were very slow to grant full democratic freedoms even while capitalist industrialization was well under way. Unlike 1789, it was not primarily the bourgeoisie that continued to press on for more freedom. It was the socialists (those were the days).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848

No, not everyone in business sets out to ruthlessly exploit the situation in a nation in which market fundamentalism has eroded the qualities of a just and fair society. There are those who are willing to tone it down a bit or even to act more in accordance with the spirit of the law. But there are more than a few bad eggs out there, and their unscrupulous dealings shouldn't go unchecked. Those are the ones that need to be thwarted. Currently, there are far too many examples of them getting away with blue murder.

There can be checks and balances in place to better prevent the corruption of those empowered by the state: transparency, accountability, consequences for actions. Also, I don't have in mind Stalinism, as I'm guessing you do. There are plenty of alternatives. The masses wouldn't be oppressed by the state through such policies. It would be those unscrupulous fat cats who would bear the brunt of it, and rightly so. Perhaps they should've thought twice about evading tax or not paying their workers a fair wage or recklessly gambling away our money and lumping us with the debt or any of the other many abuses of power. I don't think that the state can do no wrong; quite the contrary. But the system in place allows it to. Fundamental systematic change is required.

The United States of America was founded on the basis of diffusion of state’s power, curtailing the power’s potential for injustice. The dazzling success of the system has made the concepts of democracy and capitalism popular around the world. The existing form of capitalism worked very well for a while, because then, wealth making power could not converge easily into a few hands. Industrialization has changed that. Now a few rich have undesirably high power to manipulate wealth distribution and politics, and to influence social values. In the US the richest 1% own more than 35%, and the top 3% own more than 50% of the total wealth, while the bottom 50% share 4%. The world statistics is even more appalling, the top 1% own 50% of the total wealth, while the bottom 68% share 3%. Unrestricted capitalism favors the rich. It is easier to make money with money than by working. Extreme power of wealth has a degrading effect, the same as that for power, on community.

What we need is a way to defuse the power of money on economic decision-making, releasing the economic factors from the narrow channels of money flow that keep enriching the economically high and mighty. This needs to be effected without blocking individual’s ability to acquire wealth, which motivates economic production. It is best to achieve this economic power diffusion with least interference from other entities, like continued manipulation by government.

This can be achieved by limiting the number of persons any business can employ. In conjunction with this there has to be a limit to how much interest an individual can own in how many businesses.

Defused special interest lobbying would lighten its grip on legislation, thereby making the governments more honest.

Requiring public businesses to cater to all comers is something that arose out of necessity in the old South, where African Americans literally could not find places to lodge, to eat, or to repair their vehicles if they broke down along the way. While I recognize that improper discrimination is a wrong regardless of who it is committed against on a theoretical level, I see the situation between not being able to find lodging very different than a gay couple who insists that a resistant baker bake them a cake. The gay couple could easily find someone more receptive and get their cake (and from someone who's not going to half bake it). — Hanover

It sets a norm of you would allow the discrimination and as such could result in old-South discrimination against blacks but then against gays. So pretty trivial on the specific level but if you abstract away from it and consider the possibility that gays could be discriminated everywhere all the time, it's clear why you need to nip this in the butt as quickly as possible.

As to the law. It fails the universality (pace H. L. A. Hart) test in that it clearly singles out a specific group. It's bad law in that respect even if procedures were followed.

protection against individuals and businesses that wanted to deny homosexuals certain services. For example, if a baker didn't want to bake a wedding cake with two grooms on it, then the law would protect their right from a lawsuit or other sanction for that discrimination. — Hanover

I've made the following point before, a point that seems to be mostly ignored. A baker declining to bake a cake representing something he disagrees with is not an example of "wanting to deny homosexuals certain services", if by that you mean a denial of service because they are homosexual. That is, it is not in itself an example of discrimination against the customer on the basis of sexuality. Many such bakers would most likely bake non-gay cakes for people whom they knew to be gay, and if so they are not guilty of discriminating against gay people.

Edit: just realized this is an old thread in which I already made the point :D

So pretty trivial on the specific level but if you abstract away from it and consider the possibility that gays could be discriminated everywhere all the time, it's clear why you need to nip this in the butt as quickly as possible. — Benkei

It's the slippery slope argument, although the slope is leaning in the opposite direction in reality. That is, we've gotten ourselves into a situation where we we're requiring the general public to respect whatever it is that two consenting adults agree to, even if what that is happens to be repugnant to someone.

To me, it's a pragmatic issue at some level, and until gays are actually discriminated against in a way that limits their ability to live their life as they want to live it (as opposed to having to endure the insults of those who don't share their viewpoint), then there's no practical reason for the law. The trend has been favorable for the gay community and pushing the matter on those holdouts who find homosexuality disagreeable seems far more designed to make a political point than to make anyone's life easier.

Your point is that a baker can refuse to make gay wedding cakes, as long as it's the cake he refuses to make and its not the person he refuses to bake for? That is, he'll happily sell gays Christmas cookies, but he won't sell them a cake he knows will be used for their marriage.

And that raises the question of what a gay wedding cake is. Does it have to have gay symbols on it, or is it adequate the baker knows that it will be used in a gay wedding ceremony? Are you just saying the baker has the right to refuse to put a gay couple figurine on the cake, but he must otherwise bake a generic cake for our gay couple (and then they can do the honors of placing the figurine on top?)

It just seems that if the baker can refuse to bake cakes for all gay couples he thinks will be used to celebrate their marriage, he could push the argument further and say that he won't bake anything that will be used within the relationship that might normalize what he finds abhorrent behavior. My point being that your distinction might may no practical difference and gays could be denied all baked goods (such homophobia among bakers, who'd've thunk?).

I'm just saying that a baker ought to be able to refuse to bake a cake he finds offensive, but ought not to be able to refuse to serve someone just because they're gay (or whatever). The latter is already clear in law, but the former is beginning to take its place in the legal definition of discrimination.

Some gay people are against gay marriage, and feel strongly about it. Imagine a gay baker being compelled to bake a cake that promotes gay marriage.

Are those opposed to corporate power's influence in our democracy opposed to the process that resulted in the veto of this bill? Or does the fact that the preferred result was achieved negate the corrupt process that brought about the result? Or, do you think that the process was not corrupt at all and that corporations play an important role in our democratic process by using their influence to get results? — Hanover

I don't see any contradiction generally entailed by one's participation in a society, institution, or process of which one is critical and which one also acts or would act to reform. For instance, you can provide clear justifications for voting in an election even while "being opposed" to details of the structure of the electoral system -- say, the fact that there's no paper trail left by some new voting machines, perhaps even the one you're using to vote.

Likewise, you can oppose the current role of corporations in politics, for instance in connection with the deregulation of campaign finance and with ideology that "money is speech", while continuing to exert influence on corporations as a means to reform the status quo in any respect.

Moreover, a call to reform the role of corporations in politics is not the same as a call to abolish corporations. Even if members of corporations had no direct influence on government, corporate profits would be of interest to governments, for instance because of the tax revenues and jobs associated with them. Thus even if such conditions obtained, a nationwide threat to boycott a corporation could put pressure on a state or local government.

Accordingly, the tactic you've singled out here is morally compatible with an interest in reforming the role of corporations in politics, and it's utility is to some extent independent of the current degree or state of corporate influence in politics.

"The Corporation" isn't a citizen, isn't a voter, isn't a person, and doesn't have opinions or positions on political issues. — Bitter Crank

Actually, if you put corporation in a different perspective, they can have positions and be relevant in the democratic process.
It is true, that corporations are by any means nothing else but legal entities. But citizenship is a legal concept as well. Both are mainly distinguished by their (let's say) range of autonomy. For a private individual citizenship is a concept to grant him rights of freedom, trade, speech, etc. A bunch of complicated concepts that i will subsume as private-autonomy. Government, respectively office bearer, on the other hand have no such autonomy and are (in theory at least) confined to do as the corpus of citizen told them to. When acting as an office bearer you have no private-autonomy, as a principle.

Corporations on the other hand are neither nor. They cannot be perceived as official, because they are not elected, not part of the concept of citizenship. Therefore, as most people would argue, they cannot have a say in political business. And that of course holds true for all small and medium businesses. We don't want the baker to tell the governor what to do. But that doesn't necessarily holds true for big corporations. Because those are, as Peter Ulrich would put it, quasi-official/ virtually official. Simply because the main corpus of citizens directly work for them, or interact with them, more directly than the elected officials. Not only that, for most citizens the well-being of big corporations is more important than most anything, because their livelihood depends on them.

Long story short, one cannot deny the influence of corporations. Not because they are evil entities, that only look after themselvs. But because they shape citizenship. A good solution, can not be found in questions like whether they should or shouldn't expose their political influence, but whether or not it should be an integral part of any corporation to expose their political stance up front.

Corporations are accidental relational structures between people and whether people work in structure Apple or structure IBM is irrelevant. That corporations, as opposed to small business, has become so important is a result of granting them to many rights. The solution, if you have any historic sense of the development of the corporate body, is most definitely not providing them more access to the political process.

That a person is dependent on a corporation should not be confused with an alignment of interests. In general they are not.

Accordingly, the tactic you've singled out here is morally compatible with an interest in reforming the role of corporations in politics, and it's utility is to some extent independent of the current degree or state of corporate influence in politics. — Cabbage Farmer

It's not so much reforming the role of corporations as it is the continued use of corporations for personal benefit. If a corporation uses its profits to interfere with climate change regulation or if it uses it to protect gay rights, it's all the same thing: the use of corporate power in the democratic setting to affect policy. When the corporation does what you want it to, you can't simply refer to it as reform, and when it doesn't, you refer to it as improper interference.

I'd also say part of your post is a straw man. Few are actually calling for the elimination of the corporation, but many are calling for limiting the influence of corporations. It would seem that if corporations should have limited access to the democratic process, that should be the objection universally and not just when that influence makes you unhappy.

And this issue can be illustrated in a variety of ways, from corporate divestiture in unpopular countries to the creation of PACs to fund liberal (or conservative ) causes.

That a person is dependent on a corporation should not be confused with an alignment of interests. In general they are not. — Benkei

Can't we just substitute the word "corporation" here with "employer." I don't really see why it matters how they've structured their business.

Well, I would totally disagree that corporations are accidental. They consist of humans after all, and are therefore the result of human endevour and human decisions.

The solution, if you have any historic sense of the development of the corporate body, is most definitely not providing them more access to the political process. — Benkei

Thats not what i intended at all. I do not want to give them access, because I assume, they already have it - see OP's bakers story. I just would suggest, to make this influence public and there accessable for citizens. At the moment corporate influence is mostly discussed in back door meetings. There is my problem. I did not mean to grant them right, quite the contrary, by making their political stances public any employee, or goverment offical can at follow their reasoning.

That a person is dependent on a corporation should not be confused with an alignment of interests. In general they are not. — Benkei

Explain, why you cannot assume, that this is actually the case? Many of friends are entrepeneurs in IT and finance. And over the last couple of years our discussion base shifted, from idealists, who wanted to make the world a better place, to more practical points of interests.

Anything that has any relation to you alters you. Your perception and your deliberation are in constant change, even of you do not notice it. So why should the relation between corporation-employees and corporation-goverment be any different?

That corporations, as opposed to small business, has become so important is a result of granting them to many rights. — Benkei

Which means, the alternative is to deny them rights and control them totally? If so only government offcials (since they cant be private obv. and not corporate) can influence corporation? Thats sounds familiar. I am considering myself a marxist as well. But in all honesty we are not ready for something like that. And of course, why should they be less corrupted, than corporate leader now?

Coporate is afraid to make their political stances public, because it would most likely invoke public outrage and complications. But as long es they are influencial, they should make their alignment known, like ther balance sheets. And should be hold responsable for that.

PS:
pls note, i don't know if corporate have to make their balances public, in every country. In my country they have to. And will face dire consequences if they are late, tempered with in form.

Until the revolution and we get rid of them, corporations should stick to business: buying, selling, renting, exchanging, digging, refining, farming, building, packaging, wrecking -- whatever it is that the corporation does.

The managers of the corporation being citizens (if they are citizens) are entitled to engage in politics, and they will represent their interests which probably will align pretty closely with the corporation. Stockholders who are citizens are liable to do the same thing -- represent their own interests which will probably align with their investments. If corporate managers or stockholders choose to act as citizens contrary to the interests of their corporations, that's their prerogative.

But... as legal entities, corporations should not be counted as persons or citizens. IBM, Apple, Ford, Target, Walmart, and Dairy Queen are 'boxes' where humans come to work, produce, consume, or manage. There is no reason to count a 'box' as anything more than a structure. We don't count the little Dairy Queen box as anything more than a place, a thing. It sells ice-cream. It has no role beyond that. The corporation is nothing more than that either. Apple and Exxon are just big boxes.

All of the state's creations -- corporations, non-profits, armies, port authorities, sanitation districts, park boards, and so on -- are subsidiary to the state which defines the terms of their existence. The state, in turn, is a creation of citizens (at the time of the state's founding). The citizens have ultimate control over the state (ideally; they might not be able to exercise effective control practically).

I do not want to give them access, because I assume, they already have it — Ralph Luther

I want to deny them access, period. Arthur D. Levinson is Chairman of Apple, Inc. Mr. Levinson can spend his own money and go to Washington, DC or Sacramento, CA and chew on whose ever ear he wants to. So can you, assuming you can afford to do it. If you can't, then you don't get to chew on Paul Ryan's ear. (Ryan is a rep. from Wisconsin and is Speaker of the House.) It has to be HIS money, though, not Apple's. Apple isn't entitled to a hearing, but Levinson is. That Mr. Levinson or Bill Gates has a huge amount of money in his pocket is well known, and buying political influence is another problem -- separate from corporate issues.

Going to your state capitol and nagging or ragging on your local rep or senator is much more affordable, generally. State and local issues are often as important as national issues. Unfortunately, big money is even bigger in state capitol hallways than it is in Washington, where politicians dream in trillions of dollars, not millions, which is what local politicians dream of.

Corporations are accidental relational structures between people — Benkei

Accidental? Maybe 'accident' isn't quite the right term. The state created the template of corporations and upon formal application and payment of fees, grants them a license to do business--as a stock-issuing corporation, for instance.

pls note, i don't know if corporate have to make their balances public, in every country. In my country they have to. And will face dire consequences if they are late, tempered with in form. — Ralph Luther

Public for-profit corporations in the US have to issue regular financial reports. Non-profit corporations are not obligated to do so, and privately owned companies (even very big ones) don't have to, either. For instance #1 Cargill (Agribusiness), #2 Koch Industries (Conglomerate), and #3 Mars (Food Processing--candy, especially) are multi-billion dollar companies that do not have to tell you just how good their year was, unless they feel like it.

At least, that's my understanding. Hanover???

The concept of a corporation was a feature of Roman law. With the revival of cities in medieval Europe, the concept was rediscovered and put to use to establish taxation.

See The Medieval World View, William R Cook

thats interesting, mongrel, thank you

Sure. It's actually a pretty fascinating story. Northern Europe began to recede into itself, losing the skills to build cities much less run them. If the trend had continued we could picture Northern Europeans crossing over to a tribal nomadic society. It was specifically a revitalization of trade that turned things around. The concept of the corporation was a critical component of the emergence of European states.

Public for-profit corporations in the US have to issue regular financial reports. Non-profit corporations are not obligated to do so, and privately owned companies (even very big ones) don't have to, either. — Bitter Crank

Ah, ok that explains it. In Germany (if I am informed correctly) there is no distinction between corporation and privatly owned companies. At least not when it comes to making their yearly balance public. Every company has to do it, and their balance sheet will (in a simplyfied form) be made accissable by the tax authorities. That is why i can easly assume corporations as quasi-official legal entities.

But... as legal entities, corporations should not be counted as persons or citizens. [...] There is no reason to count a 'box' as anything more than a structure. — Bitter Crank

But why should they be trated as "boxes"? Are those entities not capable of change and reason? They shape our lifes as well, as we shapes theirs. You said yourself, that they are not accidental.

Of course there is a disticition to be made. Every citizen regardless of wealth of status of employment can be politically active or

chew on Paul Ryan's ear. — Bitter Crank

:D But you said yourself, that there is a big if, an antecedens, if you will. You need money! Because of that big if, isn't it more sensible to assume, that even so status and wealth of a person are part of his private-autonomy, a wealthy citizen can influence political officals more, than a poorer person would be able to? Wouldn't it therefore be safer to assume, that any person of considerable wealth and his political interests are of public relevance? And are therefore to be treated accordingly? The radius of impact a rich person has is far beyond any middleclass citizen can reach.

If wealth can influence politics (and we can assume it does), than wealth should be held responsible for its public stances. First then, one would need to decriminalise influences of corporations on politics, simply by creating an official channel. So they can express themselvs without fear of losing their face. And be held responsible if they don't act on their word.

An example: Mr. Levingston raises funds for an anti-child-labour campaign in the US(the fundraiser...not the child-labour). He therefore has proclaimed his political sance in that issue. But if there was evidence, that his company actions contradict his stance, the corporation should be held responsible. That way the priciple-agent-problem would be solved in a way, that it would shift legitimacy of action. Any action would then (to some extent) be legitimated not only by stake/stockholdes, but by the public.

At the moment corporations influence politics in backroom meetings, because it would invoke public outrage, they would lose coustomers and probably be in the center of a major shitstorm. By making their influence official, they could act as before, but the public would have chance to be involved.

PS:
Most of those arguments are stolen directly from Peter Ulrich's Integrative Economic Ethics

But why should they be trated as "boxes"? Are those entities not capable of change and reason? They shape our lifes as well, as we shapes theirs. — Ralph Luther

The rhetoric employed in talking about organizations of any kind can become confusing if one isn't careful. So a couple of decades ago, some people were tossing around the buzz word "a learning organization"--an organization that carefully learns from its experience. Some people started to take this notion almost literally. Well, an organization can learn nothing because it is an abstraction. The employees of an organization can learn or forget, but the organization can not do anything of the sort.

We, persons and people, can affect each others' lives for better or for worse. We can organize ourselves into organizations -- like a Benedictine monastery, the Social Democrat Party, Volkswagen, the secret police (KGB, FBI, Stasi, whatever...) or the Strudel & Streusel Society. But these organizations are nothing more than individual persons carrying out tasks and policies that other people have devised.

Why is all of this an issue? Because... In the United States as a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Some of us are adamantly opposed to this extension of rights to corporations.

At the moment corporations influence politics in backroom meetings, because it would invoke public outrage, they would lose coustomers and probably be in the center of a major shitstorm. By making their influence official, they could act as before... — Ralph Luther

Again, "corporations" do not influence politics, or anything else. The board of directors, the operating management, and employees of a corporation influence politics. If one has enough money, or power, one can buy access to backroom meetings. This is, has been, and probably will be 'Standard Operating Procedures' for the foreseeable future.

("having a lot of money" per se is not sufficient to get into a back room meeting. One has to have used some of that money to benefit other people in the backroom meeting, or people they think are important. Tom Steyer, a Democrat and a wealthy hedge fund manager in San Francisco, donated $66 million dollars (!) to Political Action Committees. $66,000,000 is enough to get one into several back room meetings with Hillary herself. I donated $100 to Bernie Sanders. That much got me onto Bernie's mass mailing list, along with 30 million other people.)

By making their influence official, they could act as before, but the public would have chance to be involved. — Ralph Luther

The best way for the ordinary working class/middle class public to be involved in politics is through large scale organization of themselves. As Lenin observed, "quantity has a quality all its own". That's why labor union membership and participation, low-level political organizing, civic engagement, and political engagement are critical to ordinary people. In the absence of effective working class/middle class political organizing, We, The People, are getting screwed left and right.

Peter Ulrich's Integrative Economic Ethics — Ralph Luther

Never heard of it.

Well, an organization can learn nothing because it is an abstraction. The employees of an organization can learn or forget, but the organization can not do anything of the sort. — Bitter Crank

Of course I don't mean that Organizations are literally capable of reason. The structure of any organisation is an abstraction. But you can't deny that people working in an organization are affected by it. And we can assume that they influence each other in many ways, some of wich are hard to percieve. For example being part of an organization can challenge your believes and maybe enlighten your believes. Make you a better, or worse person. If an organizaion consist of humans and depend on their deliberation and decision making, and if an engagement in an organization can change those delibarations and decision capability, they(the organizations) can change. They are not "boxes".

Again, "corporations" do not influence politics, or anything else. The board of directors, the operating management, and employees of a corporation influence politics... — Bitter Crank

But just because we can differentiate personal and professional believes, it does not entail, that they are always separated. A backroom meeting wouldn't be set up by rich person, just for fun, but most likely to further the interest of his corporation. All i am proposing is just, if the professional and personal political interest of a person if significant impact are aligning, it should be made official. The only way to ensure that, would be to held not himself responsible, because that would be to much to ask from any human, but his corporation.

As Lenin observed, "quantity has a quality all its own". — Bitter Crank

Exaclty, and as long as corporations are holding most our wealth and are in charge of the production of things we depend on, they have to be held socially responsible. Can't hold anyone responsible, without making their actions known, can you?

Since we are basically reasoning about buisiness ethics, and the legitimacy of political influence, I can definitely recommend you: Peter Ulrich. Sadly you wont find him in the english wikipedia yet. I should translate the german article. :)

I can definitely recommend you: Peter Ulrich — Ralph Luther

Please don't. I have a long list of reading I am trying to get through before I drop dead.

Of course I don't mean that Organizations are literally capable of reason. — Ralph Luther

I know you don't mean that. And yes, people in an organization are most definitely affected by the character of interactions established by other people in the organization. Corporations, organizations, are only the abstract devices by which actual people work together for large-scale ends.

When it comes to ethics, there is only the ethics of how people behave toward each other, directly or indirectly. In some organizations, people behave rather ruthlessly and amorally toward each other. These tend to be ghastly workplaces for everyone except sharks, vultures, and jackets. In other organizations people behave rather nicely toward each other, assisting rather than shafting one another. I much prefer the second kind.

Enlightenment comes (if it comes) by way of other people. Libraries aren't valuable cultural assets because they contain megatons of paper or are well organized. They are valuable cultural assets because some people's thoughts can be read on the page and absorbed, and may produce enlightenment. Most often they will just put people to sleep. Similarly, it is other people in an organization (like Waste Management, Inc.) who say and do things that are enlightening--on those rare occasions when people say enlightening things.

as long as corporations are holding most our wealth — Ralph Luther

To a large extent, corporations don't hold most of our wealth. It is the stockholders -- the people who own the corporation -- that hold much of our wealth. As we discussed earlier, some corporations are private, and whoever owns that corporation also owns the wealth--like the Cargils, for example. The wealthiest 1% of the American population are so rich because they own a large share of corporations.

I suspect a lot of the conversation we are having is about defining words like corporations. I don't know... I would be surprised if we differ that much about what constitutes ethical action.

A corporation is a group which is treated as an individual in the eyes of the law. A corporation can be sued. Whether morality is involved is debatable. Ciceronianus says no.