A Little Tiny Itty-Bitty Logic Lesson.

Ok.



Who shops at Whole Foods?



Yuppies. Leftist - leaning, moderately well-to-do (read: can afford to pay inflated "organic" food prices for everyday use - must be nice,) urban professionals.



Not necessarily EVERYONE that shops there is a leftist, but I've been there; a whole hell of a lot of them are.



ANYWAY: FYI, the CEO of Whole Foods is a libertarian. Not only does he believe in free-market capitalism (GASP!) but he even goes so far as to count himself a disciple of Ayn Rand's philosophy and politics. (THE HORROR!!)



Anyway, he recently endorsed a book that the author of this article clearly does not understand.



The premise of this book is simple: corporate criminal liability should be abolished. A revolutionary idea, admittedly, but not as incendiary as the "Corporate Crime Reporter" seems to think.



Well, Mr. Crime Reporter, let's have a tiny little logic lesson here, shall we?



First: the question. Is a corporation a sentient entity, in its own right?

• Answer: obviously, no. Its every activity is determined by the individuals in its employ who make those particular decisions. A corporation cannot think for itself.

Another question: Is the ability to make unassisted decisions required in the very definition of a "crime?"

• Answer: yes, according to every court in the history of mankind. Although insanity, retardation, and "being too stupid to tie your shoes" have all met with varying degrees of isolation from the body politic (for said body's protection) upon a conviction, throughout history jurists of every stripe have agreed that if an entity is unable to make moral and ethical decisions, it cannot commit crimes. It may do things requiring its removal from the public for reasons of safety, but intent and volition are required.

Given the postulate that a corporation is not a thinking entity, then logically a corporation cannot commit a crime, because it has no mind with which to make an ethical or moral decision.



Given that a corporation cannot commit a crime, pursuit of court cases against a corporation, and holding a corporate body liable for criminal acts committed by its employees, is ridiculous and patently silly.



So: we come to the meat of the affair. As is so often the case when dealing with leftists, the "Corporate Crime Reporter" got stuck on a single point - elimination of corporate criminal liability - and didn't bother to read any of the rest of the book. Instead, he (or maybe she (never mind, he - Russell Mokhiber, to be specific)) wrote a disingenuous little screed in which he wonders

We wanted to know: does Whole Foods’ CEO Mackey agree – corporations should never be criminally prosecuted?



No matter the crime?



No matter the corporation?

Well, actually, I'm fairly sure he does. The book goes on to detail the simple fact that all decisions at a corporation are made by individuals employed by that corporation, and as such, they ARE and SHOULD BE HELD TO BE criminally liable for acts committed under their direction, or at their behest; because, unlike a corporation, they CAN and DO make moral and ethical decisions every single day, and as such are fit for trial.



See, if criminal liability requires a mind, then it doesn't matter what the crime is.



It doesn't matter what the corporation is.



It can't, because the only mind making the decision wasn't a generic hive-mind called, for example, "ExxonMobil," but instead an individual inside the corporation who made the decision that resulted in criminal action.



The customers of Whole Foods should be glad the company's CEO believes that if a crime gets committed by his company, HE ought to go to jail as the man who made the decision, rather than some nebulous entity called "Whole Foods."



Why?



Because when it's his ass on the line, he's likely to be more careful with it. Which is why, with a libertarian at the helm, Whole Foods is likely to be around for a while.