There is a fundamental sin behind the notion of corporations as legal persons. Human nature is such that, if we can dodge our individual culpability, we will. Until the consequences fall upon our personal heads, we do not change what we do. While it’s also true of government figures, that’s just an extension of the principle: If I am acting in a vested capacity on behalf of any group, then I cannot be held personally liable. Baloney.
Under the Covenant of Noah, all things are personal (The Covenant of Moses is a particular instance of Noah). The concept of corporate culpability is a perversion of the household culpability. If the master of a household sins, on the earthly level his entire household is liable for the consequence. That’s not a matter of spiritual dynamics, nor some hocus-pocus where God holds three or four generations guilty. To read it so is bringing false assumptions to the text of Scripture. God was merely noting the importance of every head of household, and his accountability before God. Sons shall not be punished for a father’s guilt, but the son will certainly be burdened by the consequences of a father’s mistakes, and will have to live down the evil repute which attaches to his name. Subsequent generations can certainly choose to distinguish themselves as better people. The point is, it’s all personal.
Under a biblical ruling, you cannot reduce your liabilities to mere tort. While it should certainly include financial liability, we fail God’s demands under Noah when we allow a CEO to escape personal liability for decisions he made at the head of the corporation. If for the sake of profits, he allowed a couple hundred people to be poisoned and die, he should die. It’s really that simple. That’s in part a fundamental assumption about justice in God’s eyes under Noah. There is no such thing as an impersonal corporation. First of all, you can’t run a business where you don’t claim personal ownership, unless you are serving as the appointed manager of someone else who does own it. In that case, you remain personally liable, but so does the owner. You can sell shares in the profits only; you remain the actual owner from God’s viewpoint. In effect, companies don’t exist, only people and families. You can’t run a business where the officers aren’t family, unless you all agree to bear responsibilities as if you were family. God assumes an officer is family, but a servant can be anybody hired off the street. Servants are not liable. However, you cannot create a legal fiction of a company which has nothing but servants. Somebody carries the personal liability, and all property is owned by an individual human. Our system in the West is completely and utterly in defiance of God. The whole thing violates God’s requirements, so it’s inherently evil from the start. Expect God to destroy it and everything which supports it.
If you suggest changing back to the ancient, “primitive” model would hamper material progress, you are wrong. God decides what is appropriate in terms of material progress. His promises were quite lavish, and any reading the Torah will show that. Do it His way, and you will find Him personally in favor of it, granting by that favor material prosperity, among other things. All the logic in the world means nothing, because you can’t pretend God is not involved. You may find yourself in a world where you cannot escape such a false regime of economics, but at the very least you should denounce it to have any hope of receiving God’s favor for yourself.
Protesters seem to understand a piece of this. When you see attempts to name and shame the individual leaders of things they despise, it’s often condemned as “getting personal” — as if there were something immoral about that. Such condemnation is backwards from what God has said. If we post the names and addresses of, say, the head officers at Monsanto as legitimate targets for some form of harassment, that’s biblical.
The reason it’s biblical is because it exercises the proper form of pressure. It’s not about fiduciary liability so much as personal liability. It’s not a civil matter, but a matter of personal decisions made by individual people which is known harmful to a lot of folks who have no say in the matter. The corporate structure of Monsanto is itself illegitimate, so simply suing them is giving credibility to the whole mess. Under Noah, this is not a civil matter; this is a social matter. That Monsanto’s doings are a threat is simply a fact. Monsanto won’t behave as good members of the vast horde of communities they affect, so they need to be punished. It starts by applying moral pressure and appeals for better decisions. Failing that, they need to be kicked out of those communities. If they won’t go, they should be physically violated and forced to go. Communities have an inherent right to defend themselves against threats. That’s how the Bible views it, by virtue of being the fundamental assumptions.
It does enter into rather muddy waters when we talk about communities making decisions of that sort. Right now, we have a very tough time with it because most communities themselves are in sin, not following the biblical patterns. Again, this is not about sins in spiritual terms, but very concrete actions in violation of God’s law for this fallen world as granted under the Covenant of Noah, and as expanded and exemplified in the Covenant of Moses. Protesters do not have to be born-again Christians to reap the blessings of God on how they go about the business of protesting; they need only abide by the conventions of Noah.
