- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
A collective is a collective. :shrug:
Then how does a union rightfully speak for all of its workers when dealing with management?
A collective is a collective. :shrug:
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.
For the sole reason that it's against Hobby Lobby's religious views.So the very fact that hobby lobby disagrees with the notion of providing healthcare coverage for birth control is of no material to you because it has no effect on their business? In what way does that makes sense? Do they not have to provide the service to their employees? How does that not have a direct effect on their business?
I don't even know what you mean by individual rights of the employees since i can't even begin to imagine what rights would be on the table for them.
No, you're starting to understand it. The corporate person represents the collective. The collective is the corporate personhood. They are one in the same.What you just described is a collective, not a person. You can't have it both ways.
The law now says that they're a person, not a corporate person. Just a fancy way of getting out of being refereed to as collective. Anyways...should be interesting to see how Scalia deals with this; he is going to have to consider all future implications on this matter.No, you're starting to understand it. The corporate person represents the collective. The collective is the corporate personhood. They are one in the same.
... and all other matters as well. When I say "contract creation," what I'm saying is "buying and selling goods."Except when they're taxed like one.
Indeed, Agent. Just consider all rights to a person here. Business will never be the same if Scalia sides with Hobby Lobby.IMO its a mistake that will be fixed eventually.
The law now says that they're a person, not a corporate person.
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.
... and all other matters as well. When I say "contract creation," what I'm saying is "buying and selling goods."
Corporations can buy and sell goods, just like people, because they're considered a personhood. They have the ability to own and trade property.
If corporation were not legal personhood; who's going to buy, own and eventually sell the $30 million dollar piece of equipment used to manufacture widget?
What, Joe Schmoe in Sales? No, he's entitled to act on behalf of the corporation, who purchases and then owns the equipment.
Then when that equipment accidentally takes off someone's arm ... is Joe Schmoe the Sales Guy is going to be the one who is held legally responsible and sued?
No, the corporate person will.
I will agree that corporations are people just as soon as Rick Perry executes one of them. :mrgreen:
Rick Perry has never executed anyone.
In Texas, the Governor is the one who signs the death warrants.
SCOTUS thinks they are. :shrug:Show me the "law" which makes this distinction. Specific language.
And this folks has been one of the things that I have been trying to convey in this thread: Gipper never asked me about this whatsoever, so what is he doing? Putting words in another person's mouth -- in other words representing me without my consent. Part of the collective that I didn't agree to. :roll:When Bob says this about corporations, he means corporations he doesn't like (like Chick-Fil-A and such). He doesn't mean this about Amazon or Google or companies with a known liberal bent.
SCOTUS thinks they are. :shrug:
The law now says that they're a person, not a corporate person.
And this folks has been one of the things that I have been trying to convey in this thread: Gipper never asked me about this whatsoever, so what is he doing? Putting words in another person's mouth -- in other words representing me without my consent. Part of the collective that I didn't agree to. :roll:
Great analogy.I will agree that corporations are people just as soon as Rick Perry executes one of them. :mrgreen:
Whatever Gipper. Go write a book about it if you want to -- just don't write a forward to it and say that I wrote it.You're a partisan hack. I know how partisan hacks operate. You're nothing special.
I know the "butthurt" posting position. You weren't the first. You won't be the last.
Great analogy.
And this folks has been one of the things that I have been trying to convey in this thread: Gipper never asked me about this whatsoever, so what is he doing? Putting words in another person's mouth -- in other words representing me without my consent. Part of the collective that I didn't agree to. :roll:
Yes. It's a legal fiction.The law now says that they're a person, not a corporate person. Just a fancy way of getting out of being refereed to as collective. Anyways...should be interesting to see how Scalia deals with this; he is going to have to consider all future implications on this matter.
I disagree. I say SCOTUS ruled them as a person. eaceNo. You just think SCOTUS said something it didn't.
There are a LOT of people who think the rulings in Citizens United were something other than what they are (everyone who parrots that that the ruling was "corporations are people."). You are not alone in that. You are the first one I've seen, though, so say something so ludicrously specific as:
Which is pulled entirely out of your ass.
I disagree. I say SCOTUS ruled them as a person. eace
I sure wish that when it came to my fiscal relationship with the state they would make me fiction too; that sure would make me feel like a person.Yes. It's a legal fiction.
legal fiction: A fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way.
Since according to our laws, only persons can be taxed, or buy and sell goods, be held liable or be sued; therefore the courts made corporations into legal persons. They're were not saying corporations are literally people. The courts wanted to make it so that the US could legally tax corporations and sue them, without having to completely rewrite the US Constitution.