One of the themes of the Ralph Nader campaign (did you know he's running for President again?) is that there should be a rule analogous to the concept of the "Separation of Church and State" that keeps corporate interests out of government.  Some refer to this as "The Separation of Business and State".  First off, I don't want to get into the argument on whether the "Separation of Church and State" is actually enshrined in the Constitution or not.  It is an existing legal principle which is used in legal practice.  I'm going to concentrate on whether we should have a "Separation of Business and State".

I actually discussed this with a former coworker of mine (from a previous client) at Drinking Liberally a few months ago.  I hadn't seen Eric in a while, and we ended up talking about this concept at the bar most of the night, while everyone else was sharing details on which anatomically correct Obama blow up doll they preferred sleeping with.  (I kid... I kid... mostly).  He made some great arguments for the concept, and really left me thinking about the idea.  The basic premise is that corporations are right now treated as people, with all the rights that people in America have, even though they are not:

In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were "persons" - before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.

Ever since, corporations have enjoyed most of the same constitutional rights granted to real people.

But corporations are not humans. They don't vote. They don't have children. They don't die in Iraq.

The people who work for the corporations are of course real people, but the corporate "entity" should never be given equal constitutional rights to real human beings.

The conclusion which Nader draws is that corporations should not be allowed to donate to politicians as a separate entity, nor should they be allowed to lobby government as a separate entity.  Corporations should not receive welfare (nor bailouts I'd assume).  These are all things that people have a right to, but not a corporation.  It actually makes a lot of sense to me... until you realize that Nader wants that to be a one way street.

Nader wants to maintain (and possibly increase) corporate income taxes.  He wants to control the methods by which corporate boards are elected.  He wants to reign in executive pay.  He certainly wants to increase corporate regulations in general.  His list is actually pretty expansive.  Though some of these things are not bad, many are simply increases of governmental control on corporations out of the notion that businesses are somehow evil.

But if we use the "Separation of Church and State" as a model, you ought to immediately see the problem with what Nader is proposing.  The goal of the "Separation of Church and State" is two ways.  The government does not adopt an official religion, nor does it strive to control how religions operate, while the people are free to practice whatever religions they choose, in the manner they choose.  The idea is that if you leave me alone, then I'll leave you alone.  This is what fosters the most freedom, for the most people.  Even though religions are not people either, they can still exert and extreme amount of influence in individuals, just like a corporation, but we still generally leave them alone.  Granted, the separation is not perfect, but it is certainly better than what we currently have regarding corporations today.

What Nader proposes turns the idea of "Separation" on it's ear.  It's not a "Separation of Business and State", it's "Control of Business by the State".  The state will still very much be involved in business.  In fact, he wants the state to be more involved in corporations.  It's as if we said that "Separation of Church and State" meant that the government could determine what day of the week was holy, which version of the Bible they used, how they celebrated communion, who was on the Board of Deacons and the government got 35% of all donations put in the offering... but the church would have no say in the matter all because we declared the church not to be "a person".

Of course, one need only go back to U.S. History class and the Revolutionary War to see what other problems arise from this.  Back then, the battle cry was "No taxation without representation!"  Yet that is precisely what Nader wants to do.  While he doesn't think corporations are human enough to vote, procreate, or fight wars, he does think they're human enough to pay taxes and be heavily regulated.  Whether human or not, they are entities which can be controlled.  They also have interests that are solely their own, and distinct from the people that govern them.  And while he is right that corporations aren't human, they do have traits that are analogous to humans.  They are born (through legal contracts) and can die (through bankruptcy).  They have property which can be bought and sold, as well as taken by the government.  They donate to charities, and participate in the community.  They consume goods, as well as produce them.

The coercive power of government on the people, and on business, is immense.  When government exerts that sort of power against an entity, whether alive or not, that entity will seek to control that power as much as possible for it's own advantage.  Nader seeks to increase the power against corporations, while somehow thinking that they won't find a way to harness that increasing power for their own good though some mechanism.  The solution to corporate influence on government is instead to decrease government influence on corporations.  Taxes on corporations should be reduced or eliminated, as should regulations.  Welfare for corporations should likewise follow suit.  Government influence of corporations should be the same as its influence over people.  It should not seek to control their operation, but rather mediate their disputes when they interact with each other through contractual obligations.

The real goal should be a "Separation of Business and State"... but a true separation.  One in which corporations have little influence over government, and government has little influence over corporations.  Separations are a two way street.