• 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

Rocketman said:
if corporations can't be considered one, lawyers in large firms shouldn't be either
Click to expand...
Yeah. A firm is a firm and not a human being.
 
What if...? said:
And yet CU grants anonymity to corporate and private donors.
Click to expand...

Your Point? This document isn't something that is widely distributed or available to the general public, and thus might as well be considered anonymous for these purposes.
 
buck said:
You're blaming the business for paying a fair labor cost, then demanding they pay more because their employees are taking advantage of the welfare system.
Click to expand...

I would use the phrase "what the market will bear" as opposed to a "fair" wage. Fair is very relative.
 
buck said:
It's unskilled labor, meant mainly for high school and college students. It is not a job you are meant to camp out at and raise a family with. If someone makes the decision that Walmart or other unskilled labor is all they want to do, or their prior decisions makes it all that they can do, it should not be society's requirement to take care of them. For the type of labor involved, $8.00 / hour is more then fair. I don't know where this belief that all full time jobs should pay enough to raise a family and have extra leftover for savings started, but it really is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Are there enough college students and retirees to fill all the retail jobs?

Are there jobs for them to move into to allow the next crop have a job?

Retail used to be a full time job that paid a living wage.

Remember the days when clerks had encyclopedic knowledge of the products they sold?

When they rendered real service?

I do.

You get what you pay for.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Your Point? This document isn't something that is widely distributed or available to the general public, and thus might as well be considered anonymous for these purposes.
Click to expand...

You brought up union spending in an environment where there will be no such records for corporate and private donations under CU.
 
Bob N said:
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:
Click to expand...

how can that be?.......if i am an owner of a business, the business follows my lead, not the people who work for me [it is not a collective business]......if you dont like my lead, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
 
buck said:
Please note, I never said only HS/college kids work there. I said, that is what it is meant for. It is not meant for someone to take a job as a cashier and stay in that position, stagnating, for 30 years and make enough to raise a family and have a savings. Just because some do decide to stagnate in retail, does not change what retail really is.. non-skilled work that is paid as non-skilled work. People making low wages while working full time has been around forever... well before Walmart... Even if that is only as far back as you are aware of.
Click to expand...

It's not what it's meant for just because you say so. People of all ages work retail and have for ages. When the US was a power house in manufacturing, wages for low skilled workers were very good. Since the outsourcing of those jobs, we have seen a shift to more retail jobs in this country. I knew many people who worked full time in these jobs and raised families. I still do. Nothing wrong with full time workers making above poverty level wages. The attitude has changed though since Walmart has taken over a big portion of retail. It seems people expect full time retail workers to make poverty level wages because they deserve to live in poverty.
 
corporate_logo_flag_new-500x333.jpg

If any of the many libertarian fools here actually read their history as much as they claim to, they might be aware that the American War of Independence was largely fought against the use of corporate power (Boston Tea Party!) that England used to control and manage their colonies. In the beginning:


Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
Click to expand...
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Those are the facts! Deal with it!

What has happened, especially after the first hundred years of independence from England, is that the rights of corporations has steadily grown in size, as the rights of private citizens have shrunk. But, all these modern day libertarian fools are concerned with is the power of the state, while they allow private centers of power to consume entire economies and effectively control our lives.
 
Commie said:
View attachment 67157521

If any of the many libertarian fools here actually read their history as much as they claim to, they might be aware that the American War of Independence was largely fought against the use of corporate power (Boston Tea Party!) that England used to control and manage their colonies. In the beginning:



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Those are the facts! Deal with it!

What has happened, especially after the first hundred years of independence from England, is that the rights of corporations has steadily grown in size, as the rights of private citizens have shrunk. But, all these modern day libertarian fools are concerned with is the power of the state, while they allow private centers of power to consume entire economies and effectively control our lives.
Click to expand...

Apparently, history doesn't matter and that is why the old saying
“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it” applies.
 
Commie said:
View attachment 67157521

If any of the many libertarian fools here actually read their history as much as they claim to, they might be aware that the American War of Independence was largely fought against the use of corporate power (Boston Tea Party!) that England used to control and manage their colonies. In the beginning:



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Those are the facts! Deal with it!

What has happened, especially after the first hundred years of independence from England, is that the rights of corporations has steadily grown in size, as the rights of private citizens have shrunk. But, all these modern day libertarian fools are concerned with is the power of the state, while they allow private centers of power to consume entire economies and effectively control our lives.
Click to expand...

wrong, it was the power of the king.

the founders list grievances against a king, not a corporation.

if you believe as i do corporations have grown more powerful.....fine!.....then call for the end of democracy which promotes( special interest )...like corporations,. and return to republican government of the founders.......end the 17th amendment.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how can that be?.......if i am an owner of a business, the business follows my lead, not the people who work for me [it is not a collective business]......if you dont like my lead, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Not if you're talking about your thoughts on reproductive rights and are stating them as a collective statement you don't -- it may or may not reflect mine or someone else.
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong, it was the power of the king.

the founders list grievances against a king, not a corporation.

if you believe as i do corporations have grown more powerful.....fine!.....then call for the end of democracy which promotes( special interest )...like corporations,. and return to republican government of the founders.......end the 17th amendment.
Click to expand...

here is a idea. maybe you should find a argument that can counter the argument of the original supporters of the 17th amendment.

and about king george, he technically did not have absolute power as monarch, as this video series explains (start the video at miniute 18:44)

 
Bob N said:
Not if you're talking about your thoughts on reproductive rights and are stating them as a collective statement you don't -- it may or may not reflect mine or someone else.
Click to expand...

here is what i took from your statement

you stated plainly....."If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine".........so the business has an.... owner.

if someone owns the property, then that property follows his lead.......its not a collective business......no other person else gets to decide policy that affects the company.

reproductive rights?........you have your opinion, and can voice your opinion,....... however that opinion cannot damage my property if you are my employee.

and as an employee you have no authority to force the owner to give him things, he wants.
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong, it was the power of the king.

the founders list grievances against a king, not a corporation.
Click to expand...
And their grievances with the king (The Tea Act) were caused because the government of England was acting in the best economic interests of the East India Trading Company...not a whole lot different than major corporations using modern governments to craft laws, tax regulations and other types of regulations, in the interests of the corporation.
if you believe as i do corporations have grown more powerful.....fine!.....then call for the end of democracy which promotes( special interest )...like corporations,. and return to republican government of the founders.......end the 17th amendment.
Click to expand...

What about the corporations' use of the 14th amendment? Should they be allowed to use rights that were originally drafted for private citizens?.........I don't see how the 17th amendment has much to do with these issues anyway.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
here is a idea. maybe you should find a argument that can counter the argument of the original supporters of the 17th amendment.

and about king george, he technically did not have absolute power as monarch, as this video series explains (start the video at miniute 18:44)

Click to expand...



our founders list their grievances, they do not name a corporation at all.


why is it you RAIL against corporations.......YET!.........you support the very structure of democracy, which provides corporations with the platform to power...........?????
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Apparently, history doesn't matter and that is why the old saying
“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it” applies.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that seems to be more true today than at any previous times in history, as collective ADHD has shortened attention spans, so many forget lessons that should have been learned 10 years ago.
 
Commie said:
And their grievances with the king (The Tea Act) were caused because the government of England was acting in the best economic interests of the East India Trading Company...not a whole lot different than major corporations using modern governments to craft laws, tax regulations and other types of regulations, in the interests of the corporation.


What about the corporations' use of the 14th amendment? Should they be allowed to use rights that were originally drafted for private citizens?.........I don't see how the 17th amendment has much to do with these issues anyway.
Click to expand...

if the 17th amendment was repealed....states would have power again in the federal government [senate], ..to put an end to corporations powers, and those of other special interest......with the 17th, this moves america closer to democracy...and democracy is FILLED WITH SPECIAL INTEREST.

the founders created republican government...not democracy........they sought to limit as much as they could special interest.....by creating separation of power......a republican form of government.........article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom