• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporations Aren't People

Bob N

Weekend Political Pundit
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
1,803
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.

Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.

Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:
Under the law, corporations and humans have long had different standards of responsibility. If corporations are treated as people, so that they are free to spend money in election campaigns and to invoke their religious beliefs to deny a kind of health coverage to their workers, are they to be treated as people in other regards? Corporations are legal entities whose owners are not personally liable for the company’s debts, whereas actual people are liable for their own. Both people and corporations can discharge their debts through bankruptcy, but there are several kinds of bankruptcy, and the conditions placed on people are generally far more onerous than those placed on corporations. If corporations are people, why aren’t they subject to the same bankruptcy laws that people are? Why aren’t the owners liable for corporate debts as people are for their own?

If corporations are going to be given the freedoms that people enjoy, they should be subjected to people’s obligations and restrictions too. I’m not sure how many corporations would think that’s such a good deal.

Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?

Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.
 
Are the people that run the corporation people? Do they not have the right to use their property in the way they see fit, to associate with who they desire, and provide services in the way they see fit? Oh right, for some reason they are lesser beings. Funny how that works. I find liberals are entirely missing the point. In order to protect the rights of people businesses can not be the slaves of the population as a whole.
 
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.

Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.

Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:

Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?

Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.

Which "obligations and restrictions" are corporations not subject to?

Do you also argue that because corporations aren't people, they shouldn't be subject to an income tax, like people? (Whoops -- is that a "can of worms" you don't want to open?)

(And again, all of this stems from people actually having no idea whatsoever what the rulings in Citizens United actually were.)
 
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.

Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.

Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:

Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?

Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.

The problem with this is that it assumes that their isn't an equal and opposite force on the other-side. What this does is enable corporations to lobby in the same way that the pro-democrat unions do.
 
I find it bizarre how liberals believe the first amendment excludes business. How does that work exactly?
 
Are the people that run the corporation people? Do they not have the right to use their property in the way they see fit, to associate with who they desire, and provide services in the way they see fit? Oh right, for some reason they are lesser beings. Funny how that works. I find liberals are entirely missing the point. In order to protect the rights of people businesses can not be the slaves of the population as a whole.
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
 
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:

Well, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
 
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:

He owns the business and the property it rests upon. His is the only voice that speaks for it.
 
He owns the business and the property it rests upon. It is his say on what happens with it.
Not when it comes to my personal religious point of view and he adds it to as his opinion to the business as a whole he doesn't.
 
Which "obligations and restrictions" are corporations not subject to?

Do you also argue that because corporations aren't people, they shouldn't be subject to an income tax, like people? (Whoops -- is that a "can of worms" you don't want to open?)

(And again, all of this stems from people actually having no idea whatsoever what the rulings in Citizens United actually were.)
I have no idea as to what you're talking about. I never said that businesses were not subject to income taxes. :confused:
 
Not when it comes to my personal religious point of view and he adds it to as his opinion to the business as a whole he doesn't.

No, your religious demands on him mean nothing here. If he doesn't want your religious beliefs impeding his walls that is his right to not allow it.
 
Well, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Yes. But their decision will affect a whole lot of things in the near future, IMO -- especially with this thing with Hobby Lobby ;)
 
No, your religious demands on him mean nothing here. If he doesn't want your religious beliefs impeding his walls that is his right to not allow it.
I don't care if he personally disagrees with me. Just speak for himself and do not include me and others as his personal convictions on any given subject. Be one human being -- do not do it collectively.
 
Yes. But their decision will affect a whole lot of things in the near future, IMO -- especially with this thing with Hobby Lobby ;)

Do you think Foundations and Trusts should be treated as "people"? How about Associations?
 
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:

If you don't own the actual business, or enough stock in it for your voice to matter, and you don't like the position a business takes on a particular policy, then you can always quit.

I think you're being pretty unreasonable if you expect a business to consult with each and every employee on every decision the leadership of the business makes.

If a business decides it's going to open a production facility in China that's sort of a "political" decision in so far as it's going to result in either the off-shoring of American jobs or the creation of new jobs, that might otherwise have been created in America, in China.

That kind of "political" business decision has been undertaken buy businesses, or their duly appointed representatives, for a long, long time; long before Citizens United became an issue.

And that was certainly not the kind of decision a business would go out and consult every single employee on and leave the direction of the business to majority rule.

So if a business decides that it's going to financially support a candidate that opposes abortion or a candidate that supports same sex marriage, how is that kind of political decision any more relevant than a decision to send American jobs overseas?
 
Do you think Foundations and Trusts should be treated as "people"? How about Associations?
As people? Yes. But not as a person.
 
Be one human being -- do not do it collectively.

But when it comes to healthcare insurance, entitlements, affirmative action, and etc...

Then do it collectively?

Or are we still going to each take personal, individual responsibility for ourselves?
 
I have no idea as to what you're talking about. I never said that businesses were not subject to income taxes. :confused:

That isn't what I asked you; of course they are.

If you think corporations are not people and should not be considered people for legal reasons, then why would you not agree they shouldn't be taxed like they were people?

And you didn't answer my other question -- what "obligations and restrictions" are corporations not subject to?
 
They are "people" for the purposes of income taxation, but not for purposes of representation or rights. Perhaps you can show us the constitutional basis for that idea. ;)
 
....Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.....

Let me guess, it is okay for a union to speak for all their members as a collective in endorsing a Progressive candidate? But, but....
 
Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?

Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.
This argument seriously hacks me off, because it's a purely semantics argument of which dumb partisans, more left that right, routinely take advantage.

Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?
Harold Meyerson is an idiot. It's "personhood" in a legal fiction sense. That's why it's called corporate personhood. Or, if you prefer, "corporate legal-fiction-entity-ization-hood."

No, corporations aren't obligated to attend wars or are entitled to vote. They're corporate persons. The fictional "person" status was created by the Judicial branch at the near founding of our nation, so that legal groups -- corporations, nonprofits, unions, universities, etc. -- can bargain on behalf of the collective, i.e. enter contracts, pay taxes or hold liability.

For example, taxing one fictional person's income tax liability is a hell of a lot easier for the IRS than calculating and collecting the miniscule partial liabilities of each of the thousands of employees and individual stock holders ("owners"). Send one income tax bill for $100 to the Microsoft "person," instead of making each employee and stock owner pay a $0.005 tax.
 
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:

If you don't like the political position of a given corporation then feel free to disassociate yourself from them. It's no different than the Democrat party speaking on behalf of Democrats or your congressman speaking on behalf of his constituency.
 
I have no idea as to what you're talking about. I never said that businesses were not subject to income taxes. :confused:
I think you're being willfully obtuse with this question.

You don't think corporations are people, or shouldn't be considered as people. Ok. Got it.

Non-humans cannot vote. I think we can agree on that.

We as a society believe in "no taxation without representation".

Hence, if you are consistent and not a hypocrite, you also advocate that corporations shouldn't pay income taxes since they are not people and cannot vote. Correct?

(Never mind any side or semi-related issues that you might use to distract from the inconvenience of this question. Stick to this scenario.)
 
If you don't own the actual business, or enough stock in it for your voice to matter, and you don't like the position a business takes on a particular policy, then you can always quit.
I'm under no obligation to quit; the owner(s) are obligated to quit using me or other workers to form one opinion or belief.

I think you're being pretty unreasonable if you expect a business to consult with each and every employee on every decision the leadership of the business makes.
As long as it does not include trying to change my beliefs than go ahead.

If a business decides it's going to open a production facility in China that's sort of a "political" decision in so far as it's going to result in either the off-shoring of American jobs or the creation of new jobs, that might otherwise have been created in America, in China.
That has nothing to do with trying to change my beliefs or putting words in to my mouth, so go ahead.
 
Back
Top Bottom