• 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

Harshaw said:
No, it isn't. It's a dumb joke which doesn't stand up the slightest bit of actual scrutiny. danarhea, I think, actually understands that. You don't seem to.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that it's a great analogy; I'm not speaking for danarhea. Again, words being placed in to other people's mouths without even inquiring to see if it's true. :roll:
 
Bob N said:
I'm saying that it's a great analogy; I'm not speaking for danarhea. Again, words being placed in to other people's mouths without even inquiring to see if it's true. :roll:
Click to expand...

:doh

I didn't say you were speaking for him. Yes, you said it was a great analogy -- and it's not. It's a dumb joke.

I also said that danarhea probably gets that. You, however, don't.
 
Harshaw said:
:doh

I didn't say you were speaking for him. Yes, you said it was a great analogy -- and it's not. It's a dumb joke.

I also said that danarhea probably gets that. You, however, don't.
Click to expand...
OK. I'm glad that's cleared up. :thumbs:
 
Henrin said:
I find it bizarre how liberals believe the first amendment excludes business. How does that work exactly?
Click to expand...

The problem isn't that corporations have free speech really. Businesses are entitled to freedom of speech as an extension of their human members.

The problem is that corporations represent an unlibertarian infringement on the rights of individuals to redress torts against the human members of a corporation. Limited liability is the real menace here.
 
Henrin said:
I suppose, but in that case it's still telling the shareholders how to run their business and their property or restricting their right to speak as a group. I don't think it changes anything really.
Click to expand...

The share holders aren't consulted for decisions like that. Some board makes those decisions. They weren't exercising their speech, the board was doing that. So it still isn't analogous to the individual. Both shareholder and board can each spend their personal money how they see fit.
 
Harshaw said:
As, and only when, ordered by the judicial system of Texas.
Click to expand...

He still gives the order. Or would you believe that John Gotti was innocent because others clipped his enemies?
 
Bob N said:
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.
Click to expand...

Start your own business, get behind on your taxes and see if a business isn't a person. The IRS won't hesitate to empty out Bob N's personal account to pay Bob N LLC's taxes.

If Meyerson thinks that the owner of the corporation's debts, he's smoking crack.
 
danarhea said:
I will agree that corporations are people just as soon as Rick Perry executes one of them. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The honchos at Enron went to priso, purdy much making Enron a person.
 
Bob N said:
You're missing the point. UNIONS do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the UNION BOSS wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the UNION as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
Click to expand...

See what I did there?
 
danarhea said:
He still gives the order. Or would you believe that John Gotti was innocent because others clipped his enemies?
Click to expand...

No, the court does. He signs off on it. It's not he can just order someone executed. The Gotti analogy doesn't work at all.
 
Harshaw said:
No, the court does. He signs off on it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. A court does condemn the inmate, but the execution cannot take place until the governor signs the order, and of course, the governor can pardon a condemned criminal instead of signing the order too.

Fact remains that I will believe that corporations are people only when Perry executes one.
 
danarhea said:
Harshaw said:
No, the court does. He signs off on it.
Click to expand...
Wrong. A court does condemn the inmate, but the execution cannot take place until the governor signs the order,
Click to expand...

What do you thiink "he signs off on it" means?


and of course, the governor can pardon a condemned criminal instead of signing the order too.
Click to expand...

Yes, he can, but that's a different function. He can pardon any crime. He can't execute anyone a court hasn't ordered to be executed.


Fact remains that I will believe that corporations are people only when Perry executes one.
Click to expand...

OK, then you actually don't understand that it's a dumb joke which doesn't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. It's not the first time I've given someone way too much credit, but I never make that mistake twice.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that Citizens United opened the floodgates to unions as well.

I want big money - whether it is unions, big business, or individuals out of politicians pockets ASAP - directly or indirectly.
 
apdst said:
The honchos at Enron went to priso, purdy much making Enron a person.
Click to expand...
If the honchos went to prison than how did Enron go with them?
 
Bob N said:
Indeed, Agent. Just consider all rights to a person here. Business will never be the same if Scalia sides with Hobby Lobby. ;)
Click to expand...

of course not, what will happen is individual rights will be infringed on and take a back seat, no thanks

logical if people think hobby lobby is right then they must also think its ok for hobby lobby to discriminate against say people who have gotten divorced, unwed mothers, women in general etc etc its just simple BS
 
Bob N said:
Indeed, Agent. Just consider all rights to a person here. Business will never be the same if Scalia sides with Hobby Lobby. ;)
Click to expand...

Unions aren't people, either. I don't see you bitching about them being goven 1st Amendment rights.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

False. Unions must get the permission of its members before they use money toward a candidate which is not at all true with corporations. They don't need the permission from shareholders to endorse candidates. The money flows easily with no strings attached.
 
Harshaw said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Corporation unlike people are often not subject to those taxes and often pay less due to favorable laws. They can freely move abroad in the search for cheap labor. People cannot freely pass borders legally.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
Corporation unlike people are often not subject to those taxes due to favorable laws.
Click to expand...

They are in the United States, which actually has the highest corporate income tax rate.

They can freely move abroad in the search for cheap labor. People cannot freely pass borders legally.
Click to expand...

Corporations cannot simply wander in willy-nilly to any country they like and set up shop. So, no, they can't "freely move abroad." (And how do you figure they'd do so without the, um, people who actually run them?)
 
Harshaw said:
They are in the United States, which actually has the highest corporate income tax rate.



Corporations cannot simply wander in willy-nilly to any country they like and set up shop. So, no, they can't "freely move abroad." (And how do you figure they'd do so without the, um, people who actually run them?)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they often pay less than that rate. At any costs, they usually pay less than people. And, they can freely move about seeking cheap labor.
 
Bob N said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unless you are an owner of the corporation, get over it.

If you don't like it, leave.

Corporations, BTW, are legal entities, not people. Corporate owners are people, and can speak as they want.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yeah, but they often pay less than that rate.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of a corporation paying less than the corporate income tax rate.


At any costs, they usually pay less than people.
Click to expand...

:roll: Going through life just making things up is not advisable.


And, they can freely move about seeking cheap labor.
Click to expand...

You already said that. No, they cannot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom