If Corporations are People, they are Sociopaths

© Josh Sager

 corporate personhood

“Corporations are people, my friend.”

Mitt Romney, August 2012

The entire idea of corporate personhood is an intensely controversial issue and one that has had huge consequences in all areas of American politics. Some would imbue corporations with the rights of individuals, including the extremely important right to free speech (and thus spend money in elections)—unfortunately, five of our Supreme Court Justices are found within this group, thus the law reflects this minority opinion.

Over the last century, a combination of several Supreme Court cases—starting with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which set the precedent that corporations have some rights under the 14th Amendment—have led to corporations being given de-facto personhood.

The progression towards corporate personhood brings up a very interesting and relevant point: If we are to consider corporations to be people, what kind of person are they? Are they philanthropic and kind to their neighbors or are they the kind of people who will slit your throat to take your wallet?

Unfortunately for all of us non-corporate persons, the very nature of the corporation is amoral and borderline sociopathic—they exist to make money, regardless of the social consequences—thus the corporate “person” is far closer to the cutthroat thief than Ned Flanders (the “good neighbor” parody from the Simpsons). To further compound this problem, corporations have legal protections from the consequences of their misdeeds that would make the average criminal ecstatic (ex. no possibility to be found guilty of murder).

Giving corporations personhood is the equivalent to letting thousands of sociopaths—possessing trillions of dollars in funding and an immunity from criminal prosecution—join society; expecting them not to victimize the weak is unrealistic but, as “people” they have the ability to influence politicians into ignoring their predation on the real people.



A corporation is a legal construct which grants a group of investors legal protections from liability and imbues their investment with a set of legal and tax statuses. Once incorporated, the corporation’s officers gain additional protection from criminal charges and the investors gain a level of protection form civil liability stemming from misdeeds of their creations.

The core purpose of the for-profit corporation is to make money and it is the fiduciary responsibility of its officers to make as much money as is possible within the law and market. As such, a corporation has no conscience or ethical obligation to do anything but exist within the law and make money—if it is legal, corporate officers have the responsibility to maximize profits, even if it involves outsourcing and underpaying workers.

The amorality of a corporation is by design but this does not necessarily make all for-profit corporations dangerous to individuals. Corporations respond to risk/reward scenarios in the way which will garner them to most profit, thus the government can prevent corporations from systematically victimizing people through passing limits on corporate action and attaching expensive consequences to violations.

In an ideal situation, the government balances corporations’ lack of conscience by making a set of strong and fair laws to constrain corporations and prevent them from exploiting workers and consumers—this is exactly how the government passes criminal laws in order to constrain sociopaths from victimizing their fellow citizens. Within this framework of laws, corporations produce and sell goods/services, making money for their workers and investors. Basically, the government becomes the conscience and limiting factor for corporate actions so that corporations can be amoral yet society is still protected.


The Corporate Sociopath

A sociopath is a person who has no conscience, sense of remorse, or ability to feel empathy with another human being. Oftentimes, they will victimize their fellow humans without a thought if it would benefit them (or just amuse them). Statistically speaking, sociopaths are attracted to positions of power—including politicians, doctors, and lawyers—and are not all criminals; that said, many violent criminals are, in some way, sociopathic.


A sociopath and a corporation have identical incentive structures and motivations:

  • Both sociopaths and corporations exist for the sole purpose of self-centered goals—sociopaths want a variety of things (money, power, sex, etc.) while corporations are solely focused upon making money.
  • Neither has an internal sense of morality and, barring intervention from a more powerful authority, both are willing to exploit others in service of their goal; just as how a sociopath may be willing to lie, cheat and steal their way through life, a corporation is willing to use child sweatshop labor to depress costs.
  • Both sociopaths and corporations are constrained through risk/reward analysis—sociopaths weigh the value or pleasure of doing something immoral against the legal/social risks, while corporations weigh the profit of their actions against the cost of legal/social actions against their agenda.

Anybody who supports corporate personhood needs to be reminded that corporations may make money, but they will do anything to maximize their profits. As “people,” corporations gain the ability to influence the government with their trillions in profit, thus making it less costly/risky for them to violate your rights.

A corporate “person” is nothing less than an entity with the legal protections of a corporation and the moral compass of Hannibal Lecter—it may ignore you or even provide a service for the right price, but it may also decide to eat you one day if it is so inclined.

This is what a "corporate person" looks like before they have bought the government and bribed politicians into removing the things restricting them--you don't want to be around when the restrictions come off.

This is what a “corporate person” looks like before they have bought the government and bribed politicians into removing the things restricting them–you don’t want to be around when the restrictions come off.

13 thoughts on “If Corporations are People, they are Sociopaths

  1. Actually Hannibal Lecter at least made a meal of his victims, where corporations just hoard their spoils in off -shore accounts. This idiotic decision needs to be put down as one of the worst Supreme Court travesties in history, and certainly overturned.


    • Total agreement with you there. Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo are going to go down in history along with Dred Scott and Bush v. Gore as the ultimate examples of the failures of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I think that another ruling is going to be added to this list when the Supreme Court destroys section 5 of the VRA next week.

      Thanks for reading,


      • Yes, well, the Supremes have to balance the *probable* decision to “allow” equal rights for the LGBT communities with something dreadful, and the destruction of voting protections would do quite well.

        My pleasure to read your clear, informative blogs, always.


  2. IMHO, if corporations=people, most of the major corporations I know of are a bunch of bitter, greedy old white men. A little diversity would be nice, thank you… .


  3. Pingback: Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court, and the Toxic Notion of Corporate Personhood » Greta Christina's Blog

  4. I completely agree with this premise, but I wonder why you didn’t cite Dodge v. Ford as evidence that corporations are sociopaths. That court decision prohibited corporations from acting for the benefit of anything other than the shareholders’ profits. It basically prohibited corporations from pro-social behaviors unless they were incidental to selfish concerns. It made corporate sociopathy the law.


  5. Nice article but you’ve mixed up the terminology I’m afraid. Sociopaths would find it difficult holding down a steady job, never mind having the drive and ability to become CEO of a major corporation. Also, your chart is incorrect. Psychopaths have generally low impulsiveness (although it does vary) and sociopaths would be considered the more erratic of the two, whereas psychopaths are more controlled. You’ve also mixed up the criminal behaviours and predispositions.

    Also psychopaths are attracted to positions of power, while sociopaths are more likely to be uneducated and living on the fringes of society because of their volatility.

    Just a friendly heads up. There’s already enough confusion about these two terms! 🙂


  6. Pingback: Corporations-Our Frankenstein Monsters: “It’s Alive! It’s Alive!” | Truth Scooper

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s