Corporate Personhood

Jeffrey Kaplan's "Consent of the Govern" (pages 14-26) provides a history of how corporations have developed the rights of "personhood" over the last 100+ years. I haven't studied that issue much and don't really have a position on it, other than to note that Kaplan seemingly would like to go back to a time when corporations dissolved every-so-often -- so that they wouldn't have time to amass money and power (15).

The article also promotes the idea that local governments are somehow more "pure" than state or federal governments (or international organizations). Why? Maybe because people tend to care more about their immediate living areas than they do about other states, regions, or countries.

I'm not intentionally trying to find fault with every essay, but here's what I have trouble with in this essay: the idea that a local government can thumb its nose at state or federal law. In other words, some local governments have said that corporations are not "persons" in their districts (20). Again, this sounds kind of dangerous to me. Who else might they claim are not persons? Or what other rights might local governments take away if they had such authority?

Kaplan's article expresses the idea that people should have a real say in governing themselves. Unfortunately, he seemingly fails to realize that state and federal officials are, at least in theory, elected by the people. And any international trade agreements go through a ratification process. In other words, the people do have a voice at all levels. Kaplan would argue that the Corporate "person" has too much power at higher levels of government. That makes me wonder, why are real people so powerful at the lower levels? What would stop Corporations from running local governments? And what stops real people from running state and federal governments?