• 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

What if...? said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Good question. I'm just restating what you said. You said, "The need for food and shelter is innately coercive. Therefore, no employment contract is free of coercion."

I fail to see how giving money to another person is coercing them.
 
Federalist said:
Good question. I'm just restating what you said. You said, "The need for food and shelter is innately coercive. Therefore, no employment contract is free of coercion."

I fail to see how giving money to another person is coercing them.
Click to expand...

There's a common thread with some conservatives that one is free to seek other employment if their current employment sucks.

This is not an entirely true statement as people have to eat and are required by law to have paid for shelter.

So if there are no other, better jobs, people are coerced by nature (and law) to stay or starve and get arrested for vagrancy.

So there is "built in" coercion in any employer/employee relationship.

Its why foreign labor is so cheap. Starving people will do anything to not starve. Event work 14+ hours a day seven days a week.

And nobody is "lifting up" the worlds poor with their factories.

China is losing business to Vietnam and Malaysia because they raised their minimum wages.
 
What if...? said:
There's a common thread with some conservatives that one is free to seek other employment if their current employment sucks.

This is not an entirely true statement as people have to eat and are required by law to have paid for shelter.

So if there are no other, better jobs, people are coerced by nature (and law) to stay or starve and get arrested for vagrancy.

So there is "built in" coercion in any employer/employee relationship.

Its why foreign labor is so cheap. Starving people will do anything to not starve. Event work 14+ hours a day seven days a week.

And nobody is "lifting up" the worlds poor with their factories.

China is losing business to Vietnam and Malaysia because they raised their minimum wages.
Click to expand...

I understand that every person has material needs he is coerced by Nature herself to satisfy.

What I don't understand is why giving money to another person can in any way be considered coercive. I would regard it as helpful, myself.
 
Phil_Osophy said:
You obviously dont know dick about libertarianism.
Click to expand...

On the contrary; I know too much about libertarianism! It's a sham created to provide the illusion of offering freedom, while what it offers, is the freedom of the already wealthy and privileged to expand their wealth and their control over taxation, trade and other government policies. Libertarianism would not have grown so influential, based on the funding of rich libertarians like David and Charles Koch, if it wasn't for the fact that our modern personal technologies...beginning with television, and increasingly so with all of the new, handheld devices, lead younger people to both have delusions of ego and their own self-importance in the world, while encouraging increasing isolation and inability to interact with people in real life....facebook friends are not real friends for example!

And, when it comes to media messaging, we live in a world now, where political opinions from the extreme right are considered part of the mainstream, while advocating nationalizing banking or essential industries is no longer allowed in MSM...either is any direct criticism of capitalism. You may notice that some mainstream liberals are allowed to advocate on behalf of social programs, environmental rules and regulations, and even raising taxes on the rich, BUT, as soon as a reporter or public commentator criticizes the system itself, and how capitalism makes people behave worse (i.e. Black Friday riots) and the lives of most people more unsatisfying, then they are effectively blacklisted from so called "liberal" mainstream media. A few examples: Chris Hedges, Cornell West, Noam Chomsky...after years in the public spotlight, try to find any of them invited on the Rachel Maddow Show or similar acceptable liberal programming.

The shift in the political mainstream thought goes unnoticed by most people under 40, but anyone over 50 can see a huge shift in what is considered mainstream thought today.
 
re: post 507.
Thanks, I'm not going to have time to respond today, I'll try to get back to this one tomorrow.
 
Federalist said:
I understand that every person has material needs he is coerced by Nature herself to satisfy.

What I don't understand is why giving money to another person can in any way be considered coercive. I would regard it as helpful, myself.
Click to expand...

In a negotiation, the employer says "I have skills you need to make money", the employer says " I have money you need so you don't die".

Its not the same as an equal exchange.

And no one is "giving" employees money.
 
Would we be worse off by funding unemployment compensation through general taxes on corporations, instead of the way we do it now?
 
What if...? said:
In a negotiation, the employer says "I have skills you need to make money", the employer says " I have money you need so you don't die".

Its not the same as an equal exchange.

And no one is "giving" employees money.
Click to expand...

The employer is writing a check to the employee. How is that not giving?

As you say, every person is coerced by Nature herself to acquire food and shelter. This is a burden placed upon every person at birth.

I don't see why you are blaming employers for this burden that was imposed by Nature. It is not the employer's fault that every person is coerced by Nature. A person doesn't need to satisfy his needs for food and shelter by becoming an employee. He can go into business for himself if he chooses.
 
buck said:
If the company is arranging the insurance and (I assume) paying a portion of the benefits, then they are being required to provide BC.
Click to expand...

Very well, then. If that is the case and the employers no longer wants to take on that moral and economic burden, he/she should be willing to give up that tax benefit that comes with administering that fringe benefit, i.e., health insurance to their employees.

I don't particularly see it as an intrusion in any way. The employee still has the option to be on BC all they want, just not to expect his employer to provide.
Click to expand...

Here again the business world can't have it both ways. You can't say "health insurance cost are eating a deep whole in my profits and I object on religious grounds" yet complain about paying a tax penalty on said benefit if not provided to the employee when it was the corporate world who clamoured for such benefit to begin with as way to lure employees to their doors while also retaining an exclusive tax write-off (because the employee certainly doesn't get to claim his portion of his health insurance on his taxes, only medical expenses incurred).

If the employer said "if you work here, you are not allowed to be on BC" that would be an intrusion in my view. to say, "if you work here, do not expect me to provide you BC", is not an intrusion.
Click to expand...

Very aptly put. But again, the solution to the problem is simple: "Allow the employee to drop his employer-sponsored health insurance, add the TOTAL amount to his pay not just the portion that is deducted from his salary so that the employee can afford to pay current market price for an insurance plan, and allow the employee to purchase health insurance on the free market." Problem solved!
 
Objective Voice said:
Very aptly put. But again, the solution to the problem is simple: "Allow the employee to drop his employer-sponsored health insurance, add the TOTAL amount to his pay not just the portion that is deducted from his salary so that the employee can afford to pay current market price for an insurance plan, and allow the employee to purchase health insurance on the free market." Problem solved!
Click to expand...

The company shouldn't be harmed (prevented from offering benefits that will attract quality employees) just because the government has decided that the company is required to violate a tenant of their religion just to offer such benefit.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
The company shouldn't be harmed (prevented from offering benefits that will attract quality employees) just because the government has decided that the company is required to violate a tenant of their religion just to offer such benefit.
Click to expand...

But the company won't necessarily be harmed. By some estimates, it would be cheaper for the company to pay the penalty and not offer health insurance to their employees. If such is the case, how exactly is the company harmed? This takes us right back to what I stated earlier: the company does have options that suit both their balance sheet and their conscience.
 
Objective Voice said:
But the company won't necessarily be harmed. By some estimates, it would be cheaper for the company to pay the penalty and not offer health insurance to their employees. If such is the case, how exactly is the company harmed? This takes us right back to what I stated earlier: the company does have options that suit both their balance sheet and their conscience.
Click to expand...

The harm is in the government telling the company that they can not offer the insurance w/o violating their religious beliefs - there is a benefit in a company offering benefits beyond the simple up front cost and the company is prevented from taking advantage.

Paying a penalty or increasing the pay of the employee, so they can choose their own benefits if they are so inclined, is not the same and does not have the same benefit in attracting or keeping quality employees.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
But the company won't necessarily be harmed. By some estimates, it would be cheaper for the company to pay the penalty and not offer health insurance to their employees. If such is the case, how exactly is the company harmed? This takes us right back to what I stated earlier: the company does have options that suit both their balance sheet and their conscience.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone pay a penalty for not buying a service from a private business???
 
buck said:
The company shouldn't be harmed (prevented from offering benefits that will attract quality employees) just because the government has decided that the company is required to violate a tenant of their religion just to offer such benefit.
Click to expand...

I believe artificial Persons have no basis to care about the subjective value of morals.
 
buck said:
The harm is in the government telling the company that they can not offer the insurance w/o violating their religious beliefs - there is a benefit in a company offering benefits beyond the simple up front cost and the company is prevented from taking advantage.

Paying a penalty or increasing the pay of the employee, so they can choose their own benefits if they are so inclined, is not the same and does not have the same benefit in attracting or keeping quality employees.
Click to expand...

I believe artificial Persons have no basis to care about the subjective value of morals. Why not simply require a Standard, and let religious authorities claim only true believers should abstain.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe artificial Persons have no basis to care about the subjective value of morals. Why not simply require a Standard, and let religious authorities claim only true believers should abstain.
Click to expand...

I believe that the owner of the business is not artificial and shouldn't be required to sacrifice his religious beliefs.

I agree fully with the second sentence. Only the believers of that religion should feel the need to abstain. Not forcing an employer to provide BC to his employees does not contradict that. the company is not, and can not, tell the employee not to use BC.
 
Phil_Osophy said:
Why should anyone pay a penalty for not buying a service from a private business???
Click to expand...

Ask yourself that same question as it applies to auto insurance. Why should anyone be required to pay a fine for not having auto insurance?

Same answer applies: Because it's the law! A driver of his own private vehicle who chooses not to buy auto insurance in affect has the exact same problem as the owner of a corporation who doesn't want to provide health insurance on religious (moral) grounds for his employees. Both are subject to a financial penalty - fine (auto)/tax penalty(business owner) if they don't obey the law that applies. The only thing that makes both situations different is profit! Nonetheless, in either case your individual right to NOT purchase a service from a private business is still taken away from you by law.
 
Commie said:
On the contrary; I know too much about libertarianism! It's a sham created to provide the illusion of offering freedom, while what it offers, is the freedom of the already wealthy and privileged to expand their wealth and their control over taxation, trade and other government policies. Libertarianism would not have grown so influential, based on the funding of rich libertarians like David and Charles Koch, if it wasn't for the fact that our modern personal technologies...beginning with television, and increasingly so with all of the new, handheld devices, lead younger people to both have delusions of ego and their own self-importance in the world, while encouraging increasing isolation and inability to interact with people in real life....facebook friends are not real friends for example!

And, when it comes to media messaging, we live in a world now, where political opinions from the extreme right are considered part of the mainstream, while advocating nationalizing banking or essential industries is no longer allowed in MSM...either is any direct criticism of capitalism. You may notice that some mainstream liberals are allowed to advocate on behalf of social programs, environmental rules and regulations, and even raising taxes on the rich, BUT, as soon as a reporter or public commentator criticizes the system itself, and how capitalism makes people behave worse (i.e. Black Friday riots) and the lives of most people more unsatisfying, then they are effectively blacklisted from so called "liberal" mainstream media. A few examples: Chris Hedges, Cornell West, Noam Chomsky...after years in the public spotlight, try to find any of them invited on the Rachel Maddow Show or similar acceptable liberal programming.

The shift in the political mainstream thought goes unnoticed by most people under 40, but anyone over 50 can see a huge shift in what is considered mainstream thought today.
Click to expand...

So..yeah you know nothing of aggregate libertarian philosophy and seem to be equating it to anarchy. Chomsky was more an anarchist than most libertarians.
 
buck said:
The harm is in the government telling the company that they can not offer the insurance w/o violating their religious beliefs - there is a benefit in a company offering benefits beyond the simple up front cost and the company is prevented from taking advantage.

Paying a penalty or increasing the pay of the employee, so they can choose their own benefits if they are so inclined, is not the same and does not have the same benefit in attracting or keeping quality employees.
Click to expand...

Don't convolute the issue; we're not discussing hiring practises. Therefore, your last statement doesn't apply.

As far as the moral damage to the employer for providing health care to their employees where such policies are in conflict with their religious beliefs, he's no more "damanged" than he would be if he had to pay a fine for polluting the water supply. In the course of doing business, laws of man may conflict with his moral and/or religious beliefs. In this case, the business owner is no more or less harmed than the next guy who himself may be a business owner. And while I do understand your argument, I don't believe the business owner (Hobby Lobby) will have standing in this case mainly because as I've previously stated, the owner has two choices under the law: provide the insurance or pay a penalty. Furthermore, since the business community (corporations) wanted health insurance as a benefit to lure quality employees, they're stuck with this double-edged sword unless and until the PPACA is repealed or significantly modified.
 
buck said:
I believe that the owner of the business is not artificial and shouldn't be required to sacrifice his religious beliefs.

I agree fully with the second sentence. Only the believers of that religion should feel the need to abstain. Not forcing an employer to provide BC to his employees does not contradict that. the company is not, and can not, tell the employee not to use BC.
Click to expand...

Not sacrificing religious beliefs doesn't include imposing them on others.
 
Ikari said:
So..yeah you know nothing of aggregate libertarian philosophy and seem to be equating it to anarchy. Chomsky was more an anarchist than most libertarians.
Click to expand...

Anarchism is an irrelevant ideology of a small group of intellectuals who believe they can achieve their goals without using or dealing with the state or getting involved with the political system. I think the failure of the vast majority of Occupy movements illustrates the limits of anarchism! As soon as the state puts its boot down on anarchists, the movement dissolves and evaporates.

I can agree with Chomsky on a lot of his views, but he has been tolerated by the established academia and monied interests precisely because they know that he and his followers have no theory for how to actually change the system.
 
Last edited:
Commie said:
Anarchism is an irrelevant ideology of a small group of intellectuals who believe they can achieve their goals without using or dealing with the state or getting involved with the political system. I think the failure of the vast majority of Occupy movements illustrates the limits of anarchism! As soon as the state puts its boot down on anarchists, the movement dissolves and evaporates.

I can agree with Chomsky on a lot of his views, but he has been tolerated by the established academia and monied interests precisely because they know that he and his followers have no theory for how to actually change the system.
Click to expand...

Well way to not address anything, but whatever.
 
danielpalos said:
Not sacrificing religious beliefs doesn't include imposing them on others.
Click to expand...

The imposition would be in forcing someone else to pay for something you want against their religious beliefs. Deciding not to pay for something someone else wants is not an imposing religious beliefs on anyone.
 
Objective Voice said:
Don't convolute the issue; we're not discussing hiring practises. Therefore, your last statement doesn't apply.

As far as the moral damage to the employer for providing health care to their employees where such policies are in conflict with their religious beliefs, he's no more "damanged" than he would be if he had to pay a fine for polluting the water supply. In the course of doing business, laws of man may conflict with his moral and/or religious beliefs. In this case, the business owner is no more or less harmed than the next guy who himself may be a business owner. And while I do understand your argument, I don't believe the business owner (Hobby Lobby) will have standing in this case mainly because as I've previously stated, the owner has two choices under the law: provide the insurance or pay a penalty. Furthermore, since the business community (corporations) wanted health insurance as a benefit to lure quality employees, they're stuck with this double-edged sword unless and until the PPACA is repealed or significantly modified.
Click to expand...

Hobby Lobby has already been given standing in the case. And, despite your opinion, it is harmful to the employer to tell them they can't offer a benefit to allow them to hire and retain employees without going against their religion.
 
Ikari said:
Well way to not address anything, but whatever.
Click to expand...

Then, why did you bring up Chomsky and anarchism?
To me, trying to figure out how a society works under a leftist version of libertarianism is like nailing jello to the wall!
Like right wing libertarians, the small left wing version expects people to act of their own accord in a way that the theorists would desire. So, in the left version of libertarianism, no system is needed to prevent hoarding, hierarchies or concentrations of power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom