endangered species.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
1/97
PROPERTY RIGHTS V. ENDANGERED SPECIES
THE AMERICAN DREAM AND THE COMMON GOOD
A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMaster of Public Administration
By
Charles Timothy Shates
California State University, NorthridgeJune, 2005
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
2/97
For Sue, my wife, Julia and Tessa, my daughters, and for future generations
ii
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
3/97
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
List of Illustrations ivAbstract vIntroduction 1Chapter OneWild Life: The Endangered Species Act 5Chapter TwoGround to Stand On: Property Rights 14
Chapter ThreePowers That Be: The Corporation 27Chapter FourTrees and Water: The Pacific Lumber Case 46Chapter FiveRivers and Highways: The Newhall Ranch Case 53Conclusion 75References 87
iii
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
4/97
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Table 1. Projected Forest Seral Type by [Selected] Decades. 48Figure 1. Newhall Ranch sign on Highway 126. 55Figure 2. The eventual fate of the orange trees. 56Figure 3. A cross-section of the Santa Clara River Valley. 57Figure 4. Industrial park development in the town of Castaic. 58Table 2. Newhall Ranch project permits and approvals required. 59Figure 5. On one side of the river, housing in Santa Clarita. 60Figure 6. On the other side of the river from the housing. 61Figure 7. Traffic makes its way over a bridge. 63Figure 8. Shopping center along one side of the river. 64Figure 9. Southern Californias last wild river. 71Figure 10. The Santa Clara River. 72Figure 11. In the same general vicinity, the Santa Clara River. 72Figure 12. The relatively lightly traveled Highway 126. 73Figure 13. Zoning began with the best of intentions. 75
iv
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
5/97
ABSTRACT
PROPERTY RIGHTS V. ENDANGERED SPECIES
THE AMERICAN DREAM AND THE COMMON GOOD
By
Charles Timothy Shates
Master of Public Administration
This study examines how notions about dominion, self-interest, private property,
and economic growth and how the development of environmental protections, property
rights, and corporations have influenced the shaping of the country. Two illustrative
cases are examined: Pacific Lumber, a large timber-owning concern in Northern
California redwood country, and Newhall Ranch, a large planned community in suburban
Northern Los Angeles County. The study concludes that a sudden, radical paradigm shift
is unlikely, but that accelerated incremental change may result from a convergence of the
ideas of stewardship, traditional liberal democratic problem-solving processes or direct
regulation, and green consumerismrepresenting fundamental shifts in the definitions of
self-interest and the common good, or public interest.
v
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
6/97
INTRODUCTION
The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborgs popular book, began with the
assertion things are getting better and then the book questioned
the Litany of our ever deteriorating environment...the view of theenvironment that is shaped by the images and messages that confront useach day on television, in the newspapers, in political statements and inconversations at work and at the kitchen table (2001, p. 1).
Lomborgs point, ultimately, was not that problems dont exist. Rather, his point
was that, while things were not necessarily good, they were better than they used to be.
To prove his position, he cited such factors as improved sanitation, improved nutrition,
and longer life spans. Indeed, modern science has brought a flood of achievements in its
wake. It is just this success that has added credence to the mythology of progress which
is one of the hallmarks of modernism.
It should be noted that findings of fact made by the modern-day United States
Congress are supposed to be based upon the best scientific evidence available at the time.
In public administration, Any final rule [issued by an administrative agency] must be
based on substantial evidence on the record before the agency at the time of the decision
(Cooper, 2000, p. 152) [emphasis added]. In the Rules of the House of Representatives,
clauses 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI, and 2(b)(1) of rule X, require that oversight findings and
recommendations be reflected in all Committee reports (U.S. House, 1998). The
Congress ultimately may make compromises or even disregard findings in the interest of
political expediency; unlike administrative agencies, the Congress is directly accountable
to the electorate.
1
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
7/97
Notwithstanding environmental skeptics, such as Lomborg, who decline to
acknowledge the darker side of material progress, Section 2(a) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 begins with a brief enumeration of the following findings of Congress:
(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States havebeen rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth anddevelopment untempered by adequate concern and conservation;(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted innumbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological,educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation andits people
The quality of life issues that the human race confronts at the beginning of the 21 st
century are caused, in part, by unbridled freedom in the use and development of private
property, and in part by market failures. Such problems as traffic congestion, poor air
quality, and loss of habitat are often the direct result of mans economic activities. Many
problems are caused by the way we build; many by the way we extract and use natural
resources.
Efforts to alleviate environmental problems through policy have met with only
mixed success. This is for two reasons. First, symbolic actions give a sense of having
addressed the problem, when they are really only what Smith (1998) called a suture, an
attempt to hide the wound that contemporary environmentalists are making to the smooth
fabric of productivist discourse (p. 7). According to Cahn (1995, p. 24), policymakers
create and sell policy outputs to political consumers, addressing the problem symbolically
but failing to address the substantive issues. Second, some of the most successful pieces
of legislation have also been the most contentious. This is to be expected, given that, as
Cahn wrote, Environmental policy is predicated on regulating the use and development
of private property, (Ibid., p. 8) while at the same time private property underpins the
2
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
8/97
liberal democratic tradition. To the extent that legislation such as the Endangered
Species Act has been successful in giving environmentalists a tool with which to fight
development interests, there has been also a significant amount of grassroots mobilization
in opposition to environmental regulation and generally in favor of liberal property rights.
This recent mobilization against environmental regulations has been very
successful because it taps into an emotional response to a very powerful American Dream
archetype. Individuals may have different versions of the dream, which has evolved over
the course of American history. (The dream of a house in the suburbs, for example, is
a far cry from the dream of freedom to worship as one pleases.) In a recent
development on this theme, Rifkens book, The European Dream (2004), was based on
his observation that the American Dream was in decline and would eventually be
eclipsed by the new European Dream, which stresses personal development and
cooperation within community over competitive accumulation of wealth.
This paper explores the conflict between public policy and individual freedom in
the context of land use and development. Property rights rank among the most important
individual freedoms, but what happens when the exercise of those rights by property
owners interested in developing their land, for example, infringes on a neighbors quiet
enjoyment? Before the administrative state came into being, there existed a long history
of common law, the remnant of which is today known as nuisance law, which governed
such infringements.
There exists a strong tension between two fundamentally opposing environmental
philosophies that have shaped the development of the United States. These philosophies
can be summed up as falling under one of two categories of belief about humanitys place
3
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
9/97
in and relationship to nature. The first category can be called dominion, that which has
guided the expansive aspect of American history. It informs extraction and development
of natural resources, what Smith (1998, p. 5) called the discourse of productivism. The
second category can be called stewardship, and it informs the conservation of natural
resources. Freyfogle (2003, pp. 37-38) distinguished these two differing types of energy,
as represented by the terms boomers and stickers. The latter were noted for their
desire for quiet enjoyment.
The birth of the modern corporate form of business, not surprisingly on the
dominion side of the equation, has enabled more rapid growth and development of
resources because of its ability to generate greater amounts of capital. Growth and
development is goodto a point. Cells must grow and divide if an organism is to live,
but when cells grow too much, or divide too fast, the result may be harmful to the
organism as a whole. There is a name for this condition andwhen malignantit is
called cancer.
4
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
10/97
CHAPTER ONEWILD LIFE: THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Public policy can be defined as a public response to a perceived public problem.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Congress passed, and the Republican president,
Richard Nixon, signed into law, a number of Acts, among them the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, designed to
protect the environment and reverse perceived environmental degradation. The
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is a public attempt to address the narrow problem
of species extinctionthe loss of biodiversity. Is this a legitimate problem? Species
become extinct as a normal result of the evolutionary process, but scientific evidence has
indicated that mans activities have accelerated the rates of extinction far beyond the
background levels that existed previously, suggesting that the environmental impact of
these activities is significant. Detractors literally tend to miss the forest for the trees,
asking would we rather save an owl or our economic livelihoods. But the bigger picture
is far more insidiousfor if all these other species are dying maybe mans environment
is becoming unsuitable for man as well. It is particularly distressing to some scientists
that the worlds amphibians are rapidly disappearing. These creatures are considered
indicator species, like the miners canary that indicates when it is no longer safe in the
mine. The reason that animals such as frogs are so susceptible to environmental
degradation is in the nature of their biology. Frogs have numerous capillaries near the
surface of their skin and obtain a large portion of their oxygen directly from the air and
water to which they are exposed. The fact that they have been disappearing has scientists
alarmed. The U.S. Geological Survey has instituted a frog watch, asking volunteer
5
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
11/97
citizens to report on their observations around the country (Where have all the frogs
gone?, 2002).
From a Darwinian perspective, perhaps man is, by virtue of his large brain,
destined to outlive many weaker species in his built environment. Assuming this is the
case, man must still make the utilitarian determination as to which species are essential to
cultivate for providing his basic needs: air, water, food, medicine, clothing, and shelter.
Until man has attained complete understanding of the biochemistry that underlies all life,
any loss in biodiversity should be looked upon as an opportunity cost. For example,
recently researchers in San Diego have discovered a new species of oceanic bacteria that
naturally produces a previously unknown compound that shows promise of being
effective in treating cancer (Wilson, 2003). The popular movieMedicine Man
(McTiernan, 1992), dramatizes this theme, suggesting perhaps it is better not to burn the
forest in the name of progress before such beneficial creatures can be discovered.
The ESA has been one of environmentalists most powerful weapons against
careless enterprise, but has been under attack recently by those who feel government
regulations infringe upon their property rights. In recent court cases, private property
owners have brought suits questioning the governments ability to interfere with
development on private property. InRancho Viejo, LLC v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of
the Interior, et al. (2003), the plaintiff sought to develop a housing project in northern
San Diego County and a survey, conducted to comply with the ESA, found that the
development would likely disturb the habitat of a group of endangered arroyo toads in the
area. Rather than accepting an alternative plan proposed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the plaintiff filed suit claiming the the application of the ESA is
6
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
12/97
unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the authority under the
Commerce Clause to regulate private lands in order to protect the arroyo toads on those
lands, because the toads live entirely within California. The United States District Court
for the District of Columbia entered summary judgement on behalf of the defendants and
plaintiff appealed. Although plaintiff lost on appeal, the dissenting opinion suggests that
perhaps a gradual shift has been taking place, and that the pendulum is now beginning to
swing the other wayin favor of the industrial paradigm.
The following case, dealing with state property, demonstrates the weight of the
Endangered Species Act as a federal issue. In Palila v. Hawaii Dept of Land and
Natural Resources (1979), the district court carried[the] suggestion of a federal
ownership interest in wildlife a step further. In Palila, the court upheld the Endangered
Species Act, as applied to nonmigratory species found on state lands, on the basis of the
treaty power and commerce clause. It nonetheless suggested that the importance of
preserving such a national resource [as endangered species] may be of such magnitude as
to rise to the level of a federal property interest (Bean & Rowland, 1997, p. 22).
California has usually mirrored the federal environmental laws, sometimes
anticipating them. In the 10th
Edition ofThe Guide to the California Environmental
Quality Act(Remy, Thomas, Moose, & Manley, 1999), the authors review several
important court cases relevant to the issue of the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA). The authors discuss how CESA relates to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and also how the latter relates to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA ).
7
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
13/97
CEQA was passed in 1970 (Public Resources Code Sec. 21000, et seq.) to require
public agency decision makerssuch as, for example, a county board of supervisors
about to approve a development projectto consider the environmental consequences of
their actions. Although CEQA is compared to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) that was passed a year earlier, and upon which CEQA is modeled, the authors
point out that Unlike NEPA, CEQA has not been characterized as merely a procedural
statute. Rather, CEQA contains a substantive mandate that public agencies refrain from
approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects
(Remy, et al., pp. 2-3). Also, because the environmental review process involves the
public, it has become a means of enabling democratic participation. Thus, the California
Supreme Court has stated that the CEQA process protects not only the environment but
also informed self-government (Ibid., p. 3).
The procedural devices, as the authors call them, of the CEQA environmental
review can be viewed as various steps in the process. The most familiar of these
procedures is the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, or EIR. The following
steps are not sequential; the negative declaration bypasses the EIR process, for example.
Simply enumerated, they are as follows: (1) the initial study, (2) the negative declaration,
(3) notice of preparation of an EIR, (4) draft EIR, (5) public review of (a) negative
declaration or (b) draft EIR, (6) written responses to comments on draft EIRs, (7)
certification of a final EIR, (8) mitigation reporting or monitoring program, and (9)
statement of overriding considerations.
8
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
14/97
The principles governing the interpretation of CEQA are illustrated by important
California Supreme Court cases. CEQA was interpreted the first time in 1972 in the
landmark case Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors. In its decision the Court set
forth the principle that CEQA should be broadly construed within the reasonable scope
of its language to protect the environment. In later cases, the court hinted that other
considerations may take their place alongside the fullest possible protection for the
environment While the court neither distinguishedFriends of Mammoth nor explicitly
rejected it, the courts willingness to consider economic factors arguably departed from
the interpretive principle announced in the 1972 decision (Remy, et al., p. 7).
The CEQA Guidelines are found in the California Code of Regulations under
Title 14, Sec. 15000 et seq. The Guidelines were first issued by the California Resources
Agency in 1973, under the authority granted by Public Resources Code Sec. 21083.
Section 15000 characterizes the Guidelines as regulations. Section 15005, however,
says that the Guidelines contain mandatory, advisory, and permissive elements.
Although characterized as regulations, the court has declined to make a definitive
determination on the Guidelines, but has emphasized, however, that, [a]t a minimum,
courts should afford them great weightexcept when a provision is clearly unauthorized
or erroneous (Ibid., p. 9).
The general legislative policies that motivated enactment are identified in Public
Resources Code Sections 21000-21003. They will not be enumerated, but following are
two examples: 7. to require all agencies that regulate activities to give major
consideration to preventing environmental damage while providing a decent home and
satisfying living environment for every Californian; 14. to require governmental
9
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
15/97
agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical
factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs and
to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment (Ibid., pp. 12-13).
Compared to NEPA, The Legislative history of [CEQA] also supports the view
that environmental values are to be assigned greater weight than the needs of economic
growth.The act thus requires decision-makers to assign greater priorities to
environmental than to economic needs.The federal statute requires only that agencies
consider the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of their major
actions, as described in environmental impact statements (EISs) (Ibid., p. 31). Unlike
CEQA, however, NEPA does not create for federal agencies a mandatory duty to act,
even if alternatives or mitigation measures arefeasible. One NEPA procedural
requirement that is more stringent than its parallel requirement under CEQA is that a
final EIS must be circulated for public review for at least 30 days prior to project
approval. In addition, the alternatives analysis found in an EIS is typically much more
detailed than what would be typically found in an EIR.Under CEQA, in contrast,
alternatives need only be discussed in meaningful detail (Ibid., p. 33). Because
CEQA was modeled after NEPA, the California courts have often looked to federal cases
interpreting the latter statute as strongly persuasive authority as to the meaning of the
former.Because the California statute is more protective of the environment, however,
it seems fair to say that NEPA cases generally set the environmental floor, but not
necessarily the ceiling, for interpreting CEQA (Ibid., pp. 34-35).
The issue of endangered species is invoked within the discussion of CEQA
Guidelines Section 15065, which lists conclusions that would cause making mandatory
10
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
16/97
findings of significance. Among these conclusions is the potential toreduce the
number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species (Ibid., p.
176). Whenever any of the named conclusions may occur, an EIRmustbe prepared,
rather than a negative declaration. Furthermore, if an EIR shows that they will occur, an
agency cannot approve a project without first issuing certain findings as required by
Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091. If after
making such findings, the project in question will still cause significant impacts that are
not at least avoided or substantially lessened, the agency then must issue a statement of
overriding considerations before approving the project.Section 15065, in other words,
is necessary not only to ensure that EIRs are prepared under proper circumstances, but
also to ensure that agencies do not avoid the requirements to make necessary findings, to
modify projects where feasible to lessen or avoid significant impacts, and to adopt
statements of overriding considerations (Ibid., pp. 176-177).
The case ofMira Monte Homeowners Association v. County of Ventura (1985)
first gave effect to section 15065. The issue before the appellate court was whether the
Ventura County Board of Supervisors abused its discretion under CEQA by certifying an
EIR and granting approval of a tentative tract map without first preparing a subsequent or
supplemental EIR when new conditions were discovered regarding encroachment of a
project on a sensitive wetland area and vernal pool. The court states that Guidelines
section 15162 directs that an additional EIR be prepared where[substantial] changes
occur with respect to the circumstances, such as due to the involvement of new
significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIRThe CEQA Guidelines
require a mandatory finding of significance where, inter alia, the project has the
11
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
17/97
potential to threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, [or] reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plantThe Guidelines further provide that a
project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially
affect a rare or endangered species of plant or its habitat or substantially diminish habitat
for fish, wildlife or plants. The court found that the discovery that E Street would
pave over part of the wetlands was a change in circumstancesand the implementing
guidelines dictate that the proper procedure upon discovery of the encroachment should
have been further environmental evaluation by way of a subsequent or supplemental
report prior to any project approval. By failing to act in this manner, the County did not
consider the full range and effectiveness of alternatives and mitigation measures. As
Remy described it, the court rejected the respondent agencys argument that substantial
evidence supported its experts view that the impact in question was
insignificantInstead, the court reasoned that the impact was significant [b]y
definition, treating the issue as involving a pure legal question as to which no deference
to agency experts was proper (Remy, et al., p. 177).
Remy also deals with the issue of endangered species in the discussion of the
substantive requirements of EIRs, specifically Impacts on endangered and threatened
species (Ibid., p. 406). Focused on the California Endangered Species Act (CESA),
which is found at Fish and Game Code section 2050 et seq., Section 2080 provides that
[n]o person shalltake or attempt to take any species, or any part or product thereof,
that the Fish and Game Commission has determined to be endangered or threatened
(Ibid.).
12
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
18/97
From an intergovernmental perspective, Section 6 of the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) provides for cooperation with the States, which may include
consultation with the States, management agreements, cooperative agreements, allocation
of funds, and provides that the Secretary review State programs. The ESA explicitly
states (Sec. 6(f)) that Any State law or regulation respecting the taking of an endangered
species or threatened species may be more restrictive than the exemptions or permits
provided for in this Act or in any regulation which implements this Act but not less
restrictive than the prohibitions so defined. The federal law therefore sets a floor on
States environmental quality, but not a ceiling. The Act also requires consultation with
the Secretary on any federal project that may have an impact on an endangered or
threatened species.
This section has demonstrated that environmental laws and regulations at both the
state and federal levels can play a significant role in determining what an owner can or
cannot do to develop his or her property. In one conception of mans proper place and
role in nature, developmentor economic growthis absolutely vital to his continued
existence.
13
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
19/97
CHAPTER TWOGROUND TO STAND ON: PROPERTY RIGHTS
Our place the ground we stand on is both physical and spiritual, concrete andimagined, real and symbolic. The place we define for ourselves, and the place that isdefined for us, is a constant point of reference for seeing the world, and for transforming
the world and our "place" in it (Inter Pares, 2003).
The idea of property has its roots in western civilization. When settlers arrived in
the New World they found a Native American culture that did not believe in private
ownership of land (Zinn, 2003). When the Owens Valley in California was settled,
whites pushed Native Americans out and fenced the land where water rights along the
Owens River would eventually become an important issue to the growing city of Los
Angeles (Halperin, 1993). The Native Americans who inhabited the country had
coexisted with nature for thousands of years, but the settlement of the West demanded
that water be captured for use. Bean & Rowland (1997) characterized the property status
of wildlife in the following passage:
In the history of Western thought, there is an almost unbrokentradition, starting at least as early as the Roman Empire, in which wild
animals (or animalsferae naturae, as they were called) were regarded asoccupying a nearly unique status. The law considered wild animals intheir natural state to be like the air and the oceans, in that they were theproperty of no one. Yet unlike the air and the oceans, wild animals couldbecome the property of anyone who captured or killed them (pp. 7-8).
In early New England, wildlife was owned by the people collectively, and state
law implicitly and sometimes explicitly allowed the public to hunt on unenclosed land
and to fish and forage (Freyfogle, p. 23). As the timber industry grew, and timber
operations began to cause environmental degradation (that is, fishermen and resort
owners were beginning to suffer economic losses) the state of Maine, considering
regulating the timber industry, asked the Maine Supreme Court for an advisory opinion.
The Court held that the legislature did have the authority to curtail private rights
14
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
20/97
whenever, in its judgment, the publics interest was served (Ibid., p. 25). This case
demonstrated a central element of ownershipthe obligation of landowners to refrain
from activities that cause harm to public interests (Ibid., p. 27).
Philosophers have written extensively on the meaning of property, asking what it
is and where it comes from. According to Rifkin (2004) it was the French philosopher
Jean Bodin who believed common ownership is unnatural and a violation of divine
law. Why would God include the commandment Thou shall not steal if he didnt mean
to embrace the concept of private property?... (p. 139).
As Freyfogle (2003, pp. 16-17) pointed out, Landownership includes more than
just the right to put land to use; it also includes the indispensable right to complain when
other landowners materially interfere with ones quiet enjoyment. Inevitably, these rights
are relative: one owners right to use land is tempered by his neighbors right to remain
undisturbed. Nuisance law incorporates this ownership element by providing vital
protection for land uses, ordinary as well as sensitive, yet it does so by restricting the
ability of all landowners to conduct activities that cause harm. Nuisance law enhances
andprotects property rights at the same time as it limits them [emphasis added].
Freyfogle wrote about the two rival versions of what private dominion is all
about (Ibid., p. 37). The first is an ownership image that has held high a landowners
right to live peaceably at home without significant disruptionto be protected in ones
quiet enjoyment of the land (Ibid.). The second version is what Freyfogle says might be
termed the industrial or developmental perspective, emphasizing opportunity, a release
of physical energy, and an owners liberty to act with little restraint. Dominion in this
15
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
21/97
view is about exploiting the land for personal gain (Ibid., p. 38) and was clearly
associated with the idea of manifest destiny.
Early research, according to Freyfogle, had developed a limited view of private
property, providing comfortable reassurance in the dominant myth of material progress:
Everyone shared at first, theory had it, and only later, aspopulations rose and economies gained sophistication, did true privateproperty emerge. It was a comforting conclusion, for it placed at the apexof propertys evolution a world view based on the individualism andprogressive thought of nineteenth-century Europe (p. 44).
Continued research in the 20th
century created a much more nuanced
understanding of the institution and how it evolved, as Freyfogle wrote,
Private rights in tribal groups were crafted and allocated to groupmembers in ways that reflected the members needs, economies, andvalues. Rights to land typically took the form of specific use rightsrights to use a given tract for one or more specified purposesTypically,more than one person or family had enforceable rights to use a given pieceof land for differing purposes. Moreover, many use rightsto hunt,gather berries and nuts, and the likewere retained by the group as awhole, with all members (but not outsiders) able to exercise them (Ibid.).
Freyfogle emphasized that during the period when the United States Constitution
was written and adopted, concepts about property were strongly shaped not only by
Lockean liberalism, but by English common law as well (Ibid., p. 45). The English
common law in turn was shaped by the prevailing hierarchical culture of the manor
system. The spatial makeup of a typical English village of the thirteenth century was
described as follows:
populated by 400 to 600 inhabitants, the landscape was dividedinto three categories of space:public spaces, where anyone could go,including outsiders; communal places, where inhabitants of the village butnot outsiders held distinct use rights; andprivate places, normally homesand private gardens, where owners expected an element of privacy (Ibid.,p. 48).
16
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
22/97
Although the manor system was eventually replaced by mercantilism,
Landownership[remained] a status, and to enter into the status was to enjoy the rights
and be subject to the responsibilities that pertained to it. With few exceptions, the
community had a voice in the ways people used their lands (Ibid., pp. 49-50) [emphasis
added]. In the colonies, there was a vigorous tradition of regulating land uses in the
public interest. Owners of attractive sites for water mills could have their lands seized
if they failed to use them in the public interest (Ibid., p. 60) [emphasis added]. Timber
regulation was commonplace, and as early as 1630, the Pilgrimshad begun restricting
the right of timber owners to export their products without the approval of governor and
council and In New Hampshire and elsewhere, large trees suitable for ship masts
were claimed as public property, even when located on private land (Ibid., pp. 60-61).
Perhaps alluding to late 20th Century wise-use and property-rights movements, Freyfogle
wrote,
As many of these colonial and early federal-era laws illustrate,land-use regulations went well beyond the avoidance of harm to imposeaffirmative duties on private owners to help achieve social aims. Latergenerations would resist the imposition of such duties, portraying them asunprecedented, but the generation that led Americas formation seems tohave had little trouble with them. Indeed, historian John Hart concludesthat the legal record they left behind reveals no sign of the later-imaginedright of landowners to be let alone as long as they do not harm others.That idea would gain currency only toward the end of the nineteenthcentury, after lawmakers had fundamentally reworked laws to supportAmericas insatiable desires to develop the continent, expand markets,widen choices, and multiply the nations wealth (Ibid., p. 62).
It was the Sanderson case, according to Freyfogle, that was pivotal in deciding
which version of dominion would hold sway. In that case the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court ruled against an ordinary homeowner in favor of The Pennsylvania Coal Company.
17
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
23/97
With Sanderson, the pendulum had completed its swing, at least inthe coalfields of Pennsylvania. From an agrarian property system thatprotected quiet enjoyment and enforcedsic utere tuo firmly, ownershiplaw had swung completely to the industrial property side, freely permittingintensive land uses with only modest concern about resulting
harmsProperty law was no longer about the right to remain undisturbedin ones lawful use; it was now chiefly about the right to use land formaximum gain. The mentality of the migrants and boomers hadtriumphed (Ibid., p. 73).
Fast forward to the 21st Century In a recent article about coal mining, Williams
(2005) described the latest technique used by the mining industrylongwall mining.
This is a form of underground mining where a seam of coal is removed except for a long
transverse wall of the seam. Once the seam has been completely mined, the wall is
removedallowing for the recovery of the last bit of coal in the seamwhich causes
surface subsistence. One of the problems created by this method has been the
disappearance of streams and ponds: the permanent alteration of existing watersheds.
Another problem is the loss in property when subsistence occurs under private
residences. Describing what happened to the former occupants, Williams wrote, Most
of the former residents were living in new double-wides and other modest dwellings
provided by the companies. For most it had been a step up (2005, p. 46). It had been a
step up because the richest coal depositthe worlds richest mineral depositthe
Pittsburg Coal Seam, runs like layer-cake filling for 2,000 miles, 300 to 800 feet under
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky (Ibid., p.
44). He wrote, Longwalling happens anywhere there is coal, but the grossest
environmental damage is in the impoverished regions (Ibid.).
The liberty celebrated by Americansto be able to pursue the American
Dreamwas strongly influenced by the institution of private property. In the formative
18
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
24/97
years of the country, property was considered indispensable to freedom from tyranny and
to providing access to the democratic process. As Americans pushed westward, however,
freedom became much more individualized. As Freyfogle (2003) noted, for the
drafters of the Declaration of Independence, it was collective liberty that was the primary
issue of the day: It was the power of the colonists as a people to govern themselves
without interference, not the rights of individuals as such to resist constraint (p. 59).
Individual freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, by the middle to the end of the 19th
Century, began to take on what Rifkin (2004) referred to as the Horatio Alger
storiesthat its possible for every American to go from rags to richesis what the
American Dream is all about (p. 26).
Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, the courts were busy undoing
the common law protections for quiet enjoyment. Quoting an 1873 New York Supreme
Court decision, Freyfogle wrote,
The general rules that I may have the exclusive and undisturbeduse and possession of my real estate, and that I must so use my real estateas not to injure my neighbor, are much modified by the exigencies of thesocial state. We must have factories, machinery, dams, canals andrailroads. They are demanded by the manifold wants of mankind, and layat the basis of all our civilization (2003, p. 74).
It is interesting to note that early industrialists were in favor of government
interference and regulation for the common good when it benefited their plans for
growth and development, often depriving less powerful constituencies of their quiet
enjoyment in the process. The irony is that nowadays those who prefer more intensive
uses of the land commonly complain about environmental protections as being
tantamount to interference by the federal government in state and local matters. In yet
another twist, as Freyfogle pointed out, Probusiness critics of government began to
19
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
25/97
argue that it was the common law alone that defined a landowners rightsthe common
law that was now so slanted in favor of industry. Statutes and regulations were part of a
different body of law entirely, a body of public law that was seen to threaten private
rights (Ibid., p. 82) [emphasis added].
The idea of property is much broader than land, though much of the controversy
surrounds land use. The Lockean influence on the founders clearly contributed to the
countrys early development. In the Lockean scheme of things, land that is not put into
cultivation or put to some other use is wasted. In the early history of the country, land
was often given away or sold very cheaply to encourage settlement and development.
The Mining Law of 1872, for instance, allowed private development on public lands and
led to a privatization of policy (Klyza, 2001, p. 113). The idea of ownership according to
Locke is that one owns ones self and the products of ones labor. By placing land into
cultivation, a farmer adds increased value and is entitled to the fruits of his labor. From
the earliest period, the role of government was seen to be the fostering of the economic
development of the country by private citizens and the protection of property thereby
acquired by those citizens.
The Lockean notion of private property as an incentive to development worked
well in the countrys early history, but there were also abuses. These abuses and the
growth of the country into a more fully settled stage, required more government
intervention in the form of an administrative state. Particularly, the Interstate Commerce
Commission and various pieces of legislation such as the Sherman Antitrust Act came
about in an effort to curb excesses of the robber barons at the end of the 19th century.
20
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
26/97
Yet, even today the wealth of these families is notable, and many of their names, such as
Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kennedy, continue to be well known.
Many writers have described the balance between private property rights and the
public interest. Richard Pipes (Property and Freedom, 2000) has attempted to
demonstrate the primacy of the right to property as a necessary prerequisite to other
freedoms. Other libertarian writers have described the gradual erosion of constitutional
protections as the country has grown. Particularly, the advent of the administrative
state has led to greater direct government involvement in land use policy (for example
zoning laws) and indirectly through other regulations that may impact land use.
Ellen Frankel Paul gave a prime example of the libertarian point of view. She
claimed that the rise of the environmental movement in the 1970s has had an enormous
impact upon the rights of ordinary property owners, and not just the conduct of business
enterprises (1987, 6).
That august political philosopher of the seventeenth century, John
Locke, insisted that governments are constructed by men for one reasononly, and that is to protect their property rights. He believed that the rightto acquire, possess, and enjoy property is the fundamental liberty uponwhich all other inherent rights of life and liberty depend. The Americanfounding fathers were deeply imbued with these Lockean notions. They,too, cherished property and the opportunity for personal development itrepresented. They embraced the idea that government exists to protectpeople's inalienable rights and should be tolerated only so long as it acts asa rights protector (Ibid., p. 3).
According to Locke, property belonged to an individual not because a king
granted it to him, but because he "mixed his labor" with it and thereby transformed it into
something separate and distinct from the common, unowned land in the state of nature
(Ibid., p. 8). Ellen Paul suggested that environmentalists rejection of these Lockean
notions represents a slide back toward a feudal notion of the state as the ultimate
21
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
27/97
authority over the use and disposition of land (Ibid., p. 9). Yet, as Freyfogle
demonstrated, land use was well-regulated in the colonies at the local level, not by a far-
flung evil empire nor by a distant bureaucracy. Ellen Paul claimed,
Most proponents of an expanded state role in determining land usedo not see themselves as embracing a return to feudalism. Rather, theyfocus upon the supposed waste and environmental degradation foistedupon society by rapacious developers who are concerned only with profitsand care nothing for the welfare of future generations. To replace theseindividual market decisions, they advocate some form of state or nationalland-use policy that will collectivize decision making while leaving theownership of property in private hands (Ibid., pp. 9-10).
She asked, Is the quality of our environment a private, local, or state concern, or
is it a federal problem? She answered that there has been a steady shift of the balance of
power in the direction of federal government and lists a number of new laws that have
spawned an elaborate apparatus of controls over the use of land, water, and air (Ibid.,
pp. 10-11). Included among them are the Clean Air Acts of 1963 and 1970, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Water Quality Act of 1965, the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1968, and the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. What she fails to do, however, is to place these
laws within historical context. In other words, she fails to explain that one of the reasons
national legislation became an imperative is because these problems were not being
addressed at the local level.
Not content to criticize only the federal government, she went on to say, But the
environmentalist activism of the past few years has not been limited to shifting the locus
of control over land use to the federal government. Of equal or even greater impact has
been the veritable flood of state land-use programs. These seek to supersede local zoning
authorities and regulate land that falls into the nebulous category of land involving state-
22
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
28/97
wide concern (p. 12). In addition, she pointed out that local control over the use of
land has been a decisive force in shaping our land-use patterns since the early twentieth
century. If we have unsightly strips of garish neon lighting, if we have cities congested
by high-rise office buildings, if we have suburban sprawl and neighborhoods in which it
is impossible to do your shopping without hopping into your carall phenomena
castigated by environmentaliststhenzoning can take its fair share of the blame (Ibid.,
p. 13) [emphasis added]. If libertarians such as Ellen Paul had their way, with so little
government what need would we have for democracy?
Ellen Paul was particularly critical of what she calls the environmentalist
movement. She said, To comprehend fully the influences on judges and legislators, one
must examine the environmentalists arguments. Environmentalists have been very
successful in dramatizing their cause, and their influence upon legal writers dealing with
the police power and its proper limits is in no small part responsible for the wave of
environmental legislation and for the generally sympathetic review of it by the courts
(Ibid., pp. 13-14). She characterized environmentalism as a battle for control of land.
suppositions shared by most environmental activists: that mans artifacts and
civilization threaten the environment; that our limited spaceship earths finite resources
are being eroded; that pollution threatens life on earth and must be eradicated at great
cost; and that the root cause of all these impending disasters lies in the unrestricted
forces of the market (Ibid., p. 14). She continued, Fundamental to the views of those
on the more extreme fringe of the environmentalist movement is a rejection of many
fundamental Western values. Both Christianity and the Greek tradition emanating from
Aristotle placed the human race at the focus of moral concern and atop the hierarchy of
23
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
29/97
earthly beings. But, she says, environmentalists believe that Western man, no longer
the focus of moral concern, ought to learn from the Zen Buddhists, Asian mystics, and
ancient pagans who knew how to live in harmony with nature and natures laws (Ibid.,
p. 17).
The most radical wing of the environmentalist philosophers takes its inspiration
from Aldo Leopold and his land ethic, which he enunciated in 1949 in hisA Sand
County Almanac. These thinkers wish to extend value or rights to nonconscious entities,
thus extending the purview of moral consideration beyond humans and animals to include
plants, rocks, streams, oceans, and the atmosphere. Although it would be wrong to
suppose that all environmentalists fall into this category, the radicals do in a sense set the
agenda. By establishing the far reaches of the environmentalists stance, they make less
extreme positions appear moderate (Ibid., p. 19). Describing Leopolds land ethic she
wrote, His system emphasizes our obligations to nature rather than our privilege to rule
over it as mere property. His conception of an interdependent biotic community was
definitely not human-centered. Consequently he disparaged the efforts of others who
pursued the conservation of nature motivated by an ethic based principally upon human
or economic concerns (Ibid.).
Way at the other end of the spectrum, she described
a dwindling band of moderate ecologists, probably the leastfavored by activists but the most influential with the general public. Thisposition might be called the right wing of the ecological movement.These thinkers, relatively few in number, reject the Weltanschauung oftheir more radical colleagues and seek to preserve endangered species orthreatened biosystems from an avowedly anthropocentric standpoint. Government, according to them, has a legitimate role to play as arbiter, todetermine exactly which natural objects and species ought to be preservedfor their future utility to humankind. Although more reasonable than otherenvironmental philosophies, this position still grants to government
24
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
30/97
decision-making power in an area where personal values decree the resultrather than hard, scientific evidence. How are officials to determine thevalue of a wetlands, for example, when no market competition informstheir decision, and they must rely upon their personal understanding of thepublic interest? (Ibid., pp. 25-26).
Here she raised a good question. How do we value such assets? Yet, even though
there is no market for them, intuitively we know they have some valueand the less
there is of them, that is the more scarce they are, the more valuable they must become.
In her view, eminent domain had also become a serious issue as courts have
emasculated one of the principal constraints upon the exercise of eminent domain: the
public use proviso, which used to mean that property could not be taken merely to
transfer it to another private owner. But with the Supreme Courts sanction for the
taking of a nondilapidated building that happened to lie within a blighted area destined
for urban renewal (inBerman v. Parkerin 1954), courts throughout the country have
been encouraged to find a public use in a variety of imaginative takings by the states.
These takings have only a tenuous connection to public necessity or public purpose, and
they often simply transfer property from one private owner to another (Ibid., pp. 28-29).
As Cahn noted, eminent domain, which many describe as a government initiative to
secure the public good, is more accurately defined as governmental action on behalf of
self-interested policy elites (1995, p. 10).
Ellen Paul made some good arguments and asked some difficult questions, but
failed to adequately address the historical basis of governmental actions. The origin of
zoning laws is a case in point. As expressed in Suburban Nation:
While government programs for housing and highway promotedsprawl, the planning profession, worshipping at the altar of zoning,worked to make it law. Why the countrys planners were so uniformlyconvinced of the efficacy of zoningthe segregation of the different
25
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
31/97
aspects of daily lifeis a story that dates back to the previous century andthe first victory of the planning profession. At that time, Europesindustrialized cities were shrouded in the smoke of Blakes dark, satanicmills. City planners wisely advocated the separation of such factoriesfrom residential areas, with dramatic results. Life expectancies rose
significantly, and the planners, fairly enough, were hailed as heroes.The successes of turn-of-the-century planning, represented inAmerica by the City Beautiful movement, became the foundation of a newprofession, and ever since, planners have repeatedly attempted to relivethat moment of glory by separating everything from everything else. Thissegregation, once applied only to incompatible uses, is now applied toevery use. Perhaps the greatest irony is that even industry need not beisolated anymore. Many modern production facilities are perfectly safeneighbors, thanks to evolved manufacturing processes and improvedpollution control. (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2000, pp. 9-11)
A dynamic, ontogenetic view of propertyas opposed to a static viewreveals
a blind faith in the power of technological progress, or what Smith (1998, p. 5) calls
productivism, driven primarily by corporate capital. The hegemony (Cahn, 1995, p. 18;
Smith, 1998, p. 16) of this system is such that a packaged and marketed vision of the
American Dream has come to be accepted as normal (Silverthorn, 2004).
26
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
32/97
CHAPTER THREEPOWERS THAT BE: THE CORPORATION
The capitalist process, by substituting a mere parcel of shares for the wall of and themachines in a factory, takes the life out of the idea of property. It loosens the grip thatonce was so strongthe grip in the sense of the legal right and the actual ability to do as
one pleases with ones own; the grip also in the sense that the holder of the title loses thewill to fight, economically, physically, politically, for his factory and his control overit, to die if necessary on its steps. And this evaporation of what we may term the materialsubstance of propertyits visible and touchable realityaffects not only the attitude ofthe holders but also that of the workmen and the public in general. Dematerialized,defunctionalized and absentee ownership does not impress and call forth moral allegianceas the vital form of property did. Eventually, there will be nobody left who really cares tostand for itnobody within and nobody without the precincts of the big concerns(Schumpeter 1942, p. 142, in Monks & Minnow, 1991, p. 67).
There can be little doubt that the corporation, as a form of organization, plays a
significant role in the modern world. As Bakan (2004, p. 1) wrote, A key premise is that
the corporation is an institutiona unique structure and set of imperatives that direct the
actions of people within it. But precisely what is a corporation, and how did this entity
become such a powerful player in all our lives?
Bowman (1996, p. 2) defined the large business corporation as an organization
possessing all of the following attributes: (1) it is a legal entity (a fictitious and
immortal person possessing rights and obligations), (2) it is an enterprise chartered by
government and subject to the rule of law, (3) it is a joint-stock company that earns
dividends for its stockholders, and (4) it is an economic, political, and social institution
through which power is exercised internally (within the enterprise) and externally (in
society at large).
The corporate form of organization surpassed the sole proprietorship and
partnership forms of organization as a tool of economic expansion because it permitted
the accumulation of large amounts of capital by pooling investors resources (unlike a
proprietorship) and it provided limited liability (unlike a partnership). This form of
27
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
33/97
organization provided the fuel for the U.S. expansion in the 19th century, being the
catalyst for the industrial revolution. A child of nation-building, according to Beatty
(2001, p. 10), the professionally managed corporation began in the effort to reach the
ever-receding line of settlement by railroad, Americas first big business.
Hall (2002, pp. 23-24) provided three explanations for the emergence of the
multinational corporation as a powerful influence. The first explanation is imperialism,
which he defined as an expansion of corporate markets and reduction of costs by
exerting economic power over a weaker nation. Second, he made the somewhat
circular argument that local economic independence is impossible for many nations,
particularly those with weak political and economic systems. The multinational firm
becomes the dominant economic and political form of organization, superseding the
traditional nation-state in weaker parts of the world. One could argue that such a
condition of dependence is brought on by the imperialistic actions of corporations in the
first place, however, and that the second explanation is really an extension of the first.
His third explanation was that the multinational corporation is the inevitable result of
corporate choices made to implement product-market strategy: As corporations begin to
produce a complex range of products, these are to be sold in different markets through
multiple channels of distribution.
A recurrent theme in Hall was that organizations in general seek to expand their
influence over the environment (Ibid., p. 24). For example, with regard to
technological, legal, and other environmental conditions, he stated, Organizations do not
respond to technological change through simple absorption. Instead, the organizations
political process operates through the advocacy of change or stability (Ibid., p. 205).
28
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
34/97
Since innovation goes against the status quo, one could argue that organizations advocate
for stability more often than they advocate for change. He wrote, The pharmaceutical
industry has had great success in protecting itself from competition by securing the
passage of state and federal legislation. It also was successful in getting organized
medicine, through the American Medical Association, to permit the industry to advertise
drugs by their brand names rather than by their generic names (Ibid., p. 257). Similarly,
Organizations are not benign recipients of laws and regulations. Organizations in all
sectors attempt to select the appropriate legal strategy aimed at the appropriate level of
government. Organizations are important actors in the development of laws and
regulations through their lobbying efforts (Ibid., p. 206).
In Halls discussion of the resource-dependence model, he said, Another
important aspect of the model is that organizations attempt to deal actively with the
environment. Organizations will attempt to manipulate the environment to their own
advantageit also contains the idea that the administrators of organizations manage
their environments as well as their organizationsThis is the institutional level of
operations, in which the organization is linked to the social structure by its top
executives (Ibid., p. 265). Furthermore, Interlocking directorates provide opportunities
for collusion, co-optation, monitoring, legitimacy, career advancement, and social
cohesionInterlocks are a means by which organizations can attempt to manage
uncertainty in their environments (Ibid., p. 231). One could argue that since change is a
major cause of uncertainty, most organizations attempt to manage uncertainty in their
environments by maintaining the status quo and thereby stifling innovation.
29
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
35/97
Large partnerships and joint ventures permit the pooling of resources, and newer
forms of these organizations, such as limited partnerships, provide a certain degree of
limited liability to investors. If the concept of limited partnerships had been around in the
early 19th century, perhaps they would have become the dominant form of business
organization instead. But it was the corporation that existed at that period in our history.
The corporation existed in Europe before America was colonized. In fact, the
great trading companies of the European empires had a significant influence on how early
settlers viewed chartered companies. As Wasserman (1983) put it in his bookAmerica
Born and Reborn, As a whole the colonists were most thoroughly incensed by Britains
exploitation of their commerce and industry (p. 42). The American Revolution was, in
Wassermans view, a populist revolt against, not only the Monarchy, but also the
excesses of trading companies such as the East India Company. The spirit of American
democracy had unleashed the worlds first anti-imperial revolution, only to give birth to a
nation that saw itself as chosen by God to rule the world (Ibid., pp. 47-48). The Articles
of Confederation formed a loosely knit federation of states that allowed for greater local
control and a more direct form of democratic government, but the Founding Fathers
realized that their own property interests were at risk. According to Wasserman,
Alexander Hamiltonlaid the foundations for the rise of Americancorporate capitalism. All communities divide themselves into the fewand the many, he wrote. The first are the rich and the well born, theother the mass of the people. The mass are turbulent and changing; theyseldom judge right. Therefore the rich must have a distinct, permanentshare in the government to check the unsteadiness and imprudence ofdemocracy. [As a result] Adams codified a constitutional system builtaround property qualifications for office-holding and voting, a strongexecutive, two legislative houses with at least one dominated by the rich,and strict limitations on the abilities of the masses to rulethe Federalistideal was perhaps best reflected in the state constitution of Maryland.
30
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
36/97
Among other things it installed an electoral college which doubly removedthe election of representatives from the public (Ibid., pp. 50-51).
As the Constitutional Convention got underway, suspicion spread through the
countryside that the convention was dominated by men who intended to profit directly
from the formation of a new government. Supporters and critics alike understood that the
Constitution was a document of post-Revolutionary reaction designed to cement the
power of what James Madison called a landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a
mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests. John Jay put it more
succinctly. Those who own the government, he said, ought to run it (Ibid., p. 52).
The government formed by the Founding Fathers was based on the economic
theory of classical liberalism, which was, in the words of Bowman, an affirmation and
defense of the freedom and rights of the individual whether they be political, religious, or
pecuniary
It is the last of these for which liberalism offered the strongestdefense, and understandably so, since it sought to justify an economicsystem that was premised on contractual relations between individuals.
A product of both the Enlightenment and the Reformation,classical liberalism also contains a conception of history as materialprogressa partly economic, partly religious view that identifies industryand acquisitiveness with the social good and heavenly rewards.Furthermore, American liberalism contains a version of material progressthat is peculiarly its ownnamely, the doctrine of the open frontier,economic expansion, unlimited opportunity, and upward mobilityinshort, the American promise.
Adam Smiths economic theory, which was outspokenly critical ofthe inefficiencies of corporate enterprise within the marketplace ofindividuals, eventually became a source of the corporations greatestideological strength. To accomplish this result, the long-held view of thebusiness corporation as a tool of monopoly power would have to bejettisoned for a modern, anthropomorphic conception of the corporationsuited to the individualistic premises of liberalism. The uniquecontribution of American constitutional law to this ideological trick ofmirrors, what I shall term the doctrine of corporate individualism, tookhold in American jurisprudence in the early decades of the nineteenth
31
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
37/97
century. Not only did it confer on the corporate entity the legal rights andcapacities of the contracting individual during the dawn of Americanindustrialization, but it also personified this legal fiction, therebytransforming a collectivity into an individual (1996, pp. 6-9) [emphasesadded].
So, from the beginning there was a structure in place that would allow, even
encourage, corporate predominance to come to the forefront. Eventually, classical
liberalism would give way to corporate liberalism. But until the industrial revolution and
the invention of the steam locomotive, corporate power would remain a local
phenomenon. Chandler, in his essay The Railroads: The First Modern Business
Enterprises, 1850s-1860s, described how this technological innovation brought about
the large corporate industrial and financial organizations with which we are familiar in
todays global environment:
The swift victory of the railway over the waterway resulted fromorganizational as well as technological innovation. the operationalrequirements of the railroads demanded the creation of the firstadministrative hierarchies in American business. The men who managedthese enterprises became the first group of modern business administrators
in the United States. Ownership and management soon separated. Thecapital required to build a railroad was far more than that required topurchase a plantation, a textile mill, or even a fleet of ships.
With the coming of the railroad boom of the late 1840s, the capitalrequired for railroad construction could no longer be raised Funds forthe simultaneous construction of so many large railroads had to come fromthe older commercial centers of the east.
As soon as the American capital market became centralized andinstitutionalized in New York City, all the present-day instruments offinance were perfected; so too were nearly all the techniques of modernsecurities marketing and speculation. By the outbreak of the Civil War,
the New York financial district, by responding to the needs of railroadfinancing, had become one of the largest and most sophisticated capitalmarkets in the world. The only significant innovation after the Civil Warwere the coming of the telegraphic stock ticket to record sales and thedevelopment of the cooperative syndicate of several investment bankers tomarket large blocks of securities. For more than a generation this marketwas used almost wholly by the railroads and allied enterprises, such as thetelegraph, express, and sleeping car companies. As soon as American
32
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
38/97
manufacturers had comparable needs for funds, they too began to rely onthe New York markets. However, except for the makers of electricalequipment, few manufacturers felt such a need until the 1890s. When theydid begin to seek outside funds, the institutions to provide such capitalwere fully developed (1977, pp. 99-108).
Throughout the course of the history of corporations, there were periodic
challenges to and consolidations of, corporate power. The courts, being the most
conservative branch of government, have tended to favor the propertied interests. But
populist uprisings, labor unions, and social movements have brought significant
challenges to corporate power. These movements have led to the enactment of antitrust
legislation and other regulatory reforms. As Beatty (2001) wrote,
The post-Civil War economy lacked centers of countervailingpower to balance the distending power of the great corporation: Anysocial history of the corporation in these years must start with thatperception. Private economic power is held in check by thecountervailing power of those who are subject to it, Professor Galbraithwrote in American Capitalism in 1952, when the worst evils of oligopolywere prevented by vigilant governments, with an arsenal of antitrust andregulatory weapons; strong unions, brandishing the threat of strikes; andnationwide retail chains, which could use their purchasing power to keep
prices in line. None of these conditions obtained in the age ofincorporation. Government could not exert countervailing power over thecorporation because, at all levels, it was in the purse of corporations.Trade unions could not exert countervailing power because they weresmall and weak, and even peaceful strikes were put down by state militiaor federal troops called out by politicians acting for corporations acting forshareholders. (And these were not Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch, with theirretirement money invested in 401(k) accounts, but the richest 1 percent ofAmericans holding more wealth than the other 99 percent). Andcompetition could not exert countervailing power as, in industry afterindustry, it yielded to combination. The Framers would have seen at once
the root of what was coming to be known as the corporation problemhow to make the great corporation answerable to society. For them,checks and balances was not just constitutional machinery, but a theory ofhuman nature. If men were angels, Madison said, there would be no needof government (pp. 129-130).
33
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
39/97
The Civil War era was an ugly episode of American history, and one during
which corporate power grew tremendously. The most fascinating result during this
period of consolidation of corporate power was the judicial activism which gave the
corporate person, a legal fiction, all of the rights of a natural person. As Wasserman
wrote,
In 1862, with the slaveowners out of Congress, a Homestead Actwas passed and signed. The foundations were also laid for the highestindustrial tariff in U.S. history, and for an Immigration Act which openedthe floodgates to cheap foreign labor. Most important of all, industrialinterests began voting themselves gargantuan grants of money and land forexpanding the western railway system. With huge profits pouring in from
supplying the army with food and materiel, the nascent industrial classsolidified its hold on the government.Just as the Confederacy had exempted large slaveholders from
fighting, the Union had allowed its rich to pay $300 each to stay out of thedraft. Among those who did so were John D. Rockefeller, J. PierpontMorgan, Andrew Carnegie, James Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, PhilipArmour, and Jay Gould. Fattened by war contracts, tariffs, and enormousgrants of money and land, this cadre of nascent Robber Barons put a gripon the machinery of government that remains very much intact today.
Combining scientific theory and medieval Calvinism, the newSocial Darwinist elite declared itself the chosen of both natural selectionand a profit-minded deity. The growth of a large business is merely theworking-out of a law of nature and a law of God, said the originalRockefellerIn the true Puritan tradition, those who had not experiencedsuch divine or natural favor had obviously been condemned as unfit.When it came to the poor, Cotton Mathers old idea to let them starvewas back in fashionIn a market economy, workers could be used anddiscarded with no real concern for where or how they lived.
If natural selection was at work in the corporate world, theSupreme Court was its ultimate arbiter. As part of the Black Bill ofRights, Congress had passed the Fourteenth Amendment forbidding thestates to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without dueprocess of law. The Klu Klux Klan and other forces of southern reactionpaid the law little heed. But in 1886 the Supreme Court ruled definitivelythat corporations have human rights, and that 230 state laws regulating bigbusiness violated due processFor all intents and purposes, thecorporations were now above meaningful public regulation. In 1887Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, only to see the commissionit mandated turn into a committee of executives who shuttled back andforth between the government and the companies they were supposed to
34
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
40/97
regulate. In 1890 Congress tried again with the Sherman Antitrust Act. Inthe next seven years the Act was used twelve times to break labor unions(1983, pp. 84-95) [emphasis added].
The labor unions were one of the first countervailing powers to emerge out of the
industrial revolution, followed by Populist and Socialist movements which paved the way
for the reforms of the Progressive Era, and later the New Deal. In the aftermath of the
legal and political accommodations of the Progressive Era and the New Deal period,
antimonopoly sentiment has been largely contained and legitimized through the public
regulation of enterprise (Bowman, 1996, p. 5).
In the latter half of the 20th century, new regulatory legislation came into
existence as a result of the Civil Rights movement and the environmental movement. In
response, corporate power has been further consolidated through mergers and a new
partnership with government. As Wasserman pointed out, the Reagan administrations
Robber Baron ethic led to the dismantling of the federal antitrustapparatus. One target was FDRs Holding Company Act, which prohibited theinterlocking of utility empires. The number of Federal Trade Commission
prosecutions for unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive business practices droppedfrom sixty-eight cases in 1980 to fifteen by 1982. I think, said George Bush,weve started to see this philosophical shift, the end or the beginning of the endof this adversary relationship between government and business. Governmentshouldnt be an adversary. It ought to be a partner. That government-businesspartnership, meant a green light for a new wave of mega-mergers. Billions ofpetro-dollars now fueled a merger mania. By the end of the decade the largest200 industrial concerns controlled 64 percent of the nations manufacturingassets, up from 46 percent in 1950. Oil company profits accounted for whatBusiness Weekcalled a mind numbing 40 percent of all industrial profits, moneynow fueling the final centralization of the industrial system (1983, p. 265).
In addition to this marked centralization of power, the evolution of the
multinational corporation has in many ways put corporate power even beyond the reach
35
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
41/97
of national governments. What about the impact of corporate power on democracy and
culture?
Democracy is defined as government by the people; a form of government in
which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by
their elected agents under a free electoral system. Democracy is a part of culture, which
is defined as the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and
transmitted from one generation to another.
Korten described how multinational corporate power has evolved outside of the
democratic process. He wrote, It is helpful to understand how the corporate
globalization agenda has been crafted and carried forward largely outside the public
discourse. It is not a matter of a small elite group meeting in secret to craft a master plan
for taking over the world. It works much more like any networking or shared culture-
building process out of which alliances among individuals and groups emerge and
evolve. There is no conspiracy, though in practical terms, the consequences are much as
if there were (2001, p. 135).
The most troubling impact on democracy, as described by Korten below, has been
the corporate influence over public opinion through the media which has undermined the
democratic election process.
Before the 1970s, business interests were represented by old-fashioned corporate lobbying organizations with straightforward names:
Beer Institute, National Coal Association, Chamber of Commerce, orAmerican Petroleum Institute. As aggressive public-interest groupssucceeded in mobilizing broad-based citizen pressures on Congress,business decided that another approach was needed. Corporations beganto create their own citizen organizations with names and images thatwere carefully constructed to mask their corporate and sponsorship and[sic] their true purpose. The National Wetlands Coalition, which featuresa logo of a duck flying blissfully over a swamp, was sponsored by oil and
36
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
42/97
gas companies and real estate developers to fight for the easing ofrestrictions on the conversion of wetlands into drilling sites and shoppingmalls. Corporate-sponsored Consumer Alert fights governmentregulations of product safety. Keep America Beautiful attempts to give itssponsors, the bottling industry, a green image by funding anti-litter
campaigns, while those same sponsors actively fight mandatory recyclinglegislationThe views of these and similar industry-sponsoredgroupsare regularly reported in the press as the views of citizenadvocates. The sole reason for their existence is to convince the publicthat the corporate interest is the public interest and that labor, health, andthe environment are special interests.
With the growing role of television in American life and thedecline of the U.S. labor movement, costly television-based mediacampaigns have become increasingly central in deciding electionoutcomes. As a consequence, the grassroots organization that was oncethe foundation of the Democratic Party structure has disintegrated, causing
it to lose its populist moorings and leaving those who once constituted itspolitical base feeling unrepresented (Ibid., pp. 144-148).
Originally commercial speech was protected because it was deemed to have social
value by providing consumers with information, but the approach to corporate advertising
has changed dramatically from one of providing information about a product to one of
associating a product with a particular lifestyle. And the courts have supported this
asymmetry. Since Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer
Council, federal courts have shifted from consumer-based assessmentsthat commercial
and corporate speech is protected if it enhances consumer decision-makingto the view
that laws and regulations limiting advertising restrict free speech (Soley, 2002, p. 256).
Coleman (1982, pp. 102-104), writing about the asymmetry of relations between
corporate actors and natural persons said, One consequence is that the corporate actor
nearly always controls most of the conditions surrounding the relation. The corporate
actor controls much of the information relevant to the interactiontypically by
advertising, propaganda, market research, public opinion research, credit ratings of
customers, and dossiers of other sorts. Information expressly designed to serve the
37
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
43/97
interests of the person is far less in evidencePersons have become, he wrote, in a
sense that was never before true, incidental to a large fraction of the productive activity in
society. This is most evident when the person who occupies a position in a corporate
actor is replaced not by another person but by a machine. Then the general irrelevance of
persons is clear. But the invention which made this possible was not a technological
invention which replaced [people with machines]; it was a social invention which created
a structure that was independent of particular persons and consisted only of positions.
Once this was done, it became merely a matter ingenuity to devise machines that could
carry out the activities which those positions required. Coleman emphasized that it is
the social structure that is the culprit. The irrelevance of persons in the structure is not
a question of machines, it is a question of the form of the structure. In management
training programs in many firms, there is a game that is used as part of the training
program: the in-basket gameThe aim of the in-basket exercise is to make the transition
from one manager to the next unnoticeableto make the manageras a person irrelevant
to the functioning of the plant. This is good for the smooth functioning of the
organization; but it takes away something of central importance to each of us: the sense
of being needed.
Beatty, writing about Emersons views on Trade, said, Emersons optimism
about the beneficent effects of trade was wisdom in advance of its time, or so it looks
today. He identified a new kind of powersoft power, one political scientist calls it,
the propaganda of the good life, that is palpable in the world today. In the century now
beginning the hard power of the nation-state is yielding to soft power, which rivals
totalitarianism in its capacity to make change, but without coercion. Soft power, the
38
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
44/97
amalgam of economic and cultural influence spread through the new media of
communications (2001, p. 123).
Klein, in her popular bookNo Logo, described the cultural imperialism of
modern-day global enterprises. She blamed much of what was wrong with globalization
on a tendency of moving away from product-centered values and toward image-centered
values.
The astronomical growth in the wealth and cultural influence ofmultinational corporations over the last fifteen years can arguably betraced back to a single, seemingly innocuous idea developed bymanagement theorists in the mid-1980s: that successful corporations mustprimarily produce brands, as opposed to products (2001, p. 3).
And for the longest time, the making of things remained, at least inprinciple, the heart of all industrialized economies. But by the eighties,pushed along by that decades recession, some of the most powerfulmanufacturers in the world began to falter. A consensus emerged thatcorporations were bloated, oversized; they owned too much, employed toomany people, and were weighed down with too many things. The veryprocess of producingrunning ones own factories, being responsible fortens of thousands of full-time, permanent employeesbegan to look lesslike the route to success and more like a clunky liability.
At around this same time a new kind of corporation began to rivalthe traditional all-American manufacturers for market share; these werethe Nikes and Microsofts, and later, the Tommy Hilfigers and Intels.These pioneers made the bold claim that producing goods was only anincidental part of their operations, and that thanks to recent victories intrade liberalization and labor-law reform, they were able to have theirproducts made for them by contractors, many of them overseas. Whatthese companies produced primarily were not things, they said, but imagesof their brands. Their real work lay not in manufacturing but inmarketing. This formula, needless to say, has proved enormouslyprofitable, and its success has companies competing in a race towardweightlessness: whoever owns the least, has the fewest employees on the
payroll and produces the most powerful images, as opposed to products,wins the race (Ibid., p. 4).
The branded multinationals may talk diversity, but the visibleresult of their actions is an army of teen clones marchingin uniform, asthe marketers sayinto the global mall. Despite the embrace ofpolyethnic imagery, market-driven globalization doesnt want diversity;quite the opposite. Its enemies are national habits, local brands and
39
-
7/30/2019 Endangered Species.pdf
45/97
distinctive regional tastes. Fewer interests control ever more of thelandscape.
Dazzled by the array of consumer choices, we may at first fail tonotice the tremendous consolidation taking place in boardrooms of theentertainment, media and retail industries. Advertising floods us with the
kaleidoscopic soothing images of the United Streets of Diversity andMicrosofts wide-open Where do you want to go today? enticements.But in the pages of the business section, the world goes monochromaticand doors slam shut from all sides: every other storywhether theannouncements of a new buyout, and untimely bankruptcy, a colossalmergerpoints directly to a loss of meaningful choices (Ibid., p. 129).
Ahmad, in an article titled Whos Wearing the Trousers? (2001), answered
Kleins claim that consumers were being manipulated by big corporations and their
brands, and wrote
Historically, building a brand was rather simple. A logo was astraightforward guarantee of quality and consistency, or it was a signalthat a product was something new. For that, consumers were, quiterationally, prepared to pay a premium.
The new marketing approach is to build a brand not a producttosell a lifestyle or a personality, to appeal to emotions. But this requires afar greater understanding of human psychology. It is a much harder taskthan describing the virtues of a product. The attempt by brands to adopt asocial componentto embrace a lifestyleis giving consumers a lever toinfluence the behaviour of the companies that stand behind them. TheNoLogo proponents are correct that brands are a conduit through whichinfluence flows between companies and consumers. But far more often, itis consumers that dictate to companies and ultimately decide their fate,rather than the other way round (Ibid.).
Ahmad concluded the article with the following statement, The founders of some
of the world's oldest [brands]Hershey, Disney, Cadbury and Boots, for exampl