• 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

Commie said:
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.
Click to expand...

To demonstrate that you don't have any true understanding of aggregate libertarian philosophy as you seem to have us confused on the whole with anarchists. We're not, a small subpopulation is but it's not the whole.
 
buck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not at all; if it is some form of Standard, such as, for example, driving on one side of the road instead of the other.
 
danielpalos said:
Not at all; if it is some form of Standard, such as, for example, driving on one side of the road instead of the other.
Click to expand...

Can you name one major religious belief system that only believes in driving on the wrong side of the road? Besides which, driving on one side of the road or another and being forced to pay for someone else's birth control against your religious beliefs, are entirely different. In one case, the individual still has the ability/right to purchase their own BC without causing harm to anyone else.. In the other, driving on the wrong side of the road will kill many.
 
buck said:
Can you name one major religious belief system that only believes in driving on the wrong side of the road? Besides which, driving on one side of the road or another and being forced to pay for someone else's birth control against your religious beliefs, are entirely different. In one case, the individual still has the ability/right to purchase their own BC without causing harm to anyone else.. In the other, driving on the wrong side of the road will kill many.
Click to expand...

It is about fixing Standards and let true believers abstain if it is against the subjectivity of their moral values.
 
danielpalos said:
It is about fixing Standards and let true believers abstain if it is against the subjectivity of their moral values.
Click to expand...

You aren't letting them abstain. You are forcing them to pay for it for others.. If the government truly let the employers abstain from purchasing a product, we would be in agreement.

The government should not be forcing people to make a choice to violate their religious beliefs or cause harm to their business and employees.
 
buck said:
You aren't letting them abstain. You are forcing them to pay for it for others.. The others can purchase it all they want by themselves. The government should not be forcing people to make a choice to violate their religious beliefs or cause harm to their business and employees.
Click to expand...

It is called, a moral of "goodwill toward men"; is it too difficult for you? In any case, it is not about denying or disparaging Individual Liberty.
 
danielpalos said:
It is called, a moral of "goodwill toward men"; is it too difficult for you? In any case, it is not about denying or disparaging Individual Liberty.
Click to expand...

It's not moral in the eyes of Christians who believe that birth control and morning after, etc are immoral.
 
buck said:
It's not moral in the eyes of Christians who believe that birth control and morning after, etc are immoral.
Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult for true believers to practice what they preach, but not deny or disparage the Individual Liberty of the rest of us?
 
danielpalos said:
Why is it so difficult for true believers to practice what they preach, but not deny or disparage the Individual Liberty of the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult for you to realize that a Christian not paying for something that someone else wants is not denying or disparaging individual liberty for anyone. In fact, forcing someone to pay for BC against their religious beliefs is the absence of liberty.

The employer is not saying that the employee can't take BC - a position that I and pretty much every one would disagree with. He is only saying that he does not want to pay for it as it violates his beliefs and his liberty.
 
Ikari said:
Well way to not address anything, but whatever.
Click to expand...

Speaking of not addressing anything, you have never come right out and stated your own dogma, or how I am misunderstanding your faith in libertarianism. Maybe, if you could actually show your hand, you could show me what the difference is between a "left" libertarian and the typical rightwing libertarians I am familiar with....and why I should give a crap about any so called difference between the two!
 
Commie said:
Speaking of not addressing anything, you have never come right out and stated your own dogma, or how I am misunderstanding your faith in libertarianism. Maybe, if you could actually show your hand, you could show me what the difference is between a "left" libertarian and the typical rightwing libertarians I am familiar with....and why I should give a crap about any so called difference between the two!
Click to expand...

Libertarian philosophy is broad and diverse. It can encompass pretty much anything anarchy to socialism. Your mistake its claiming best complete knowledge of libertarian philosophy and then trying to paint the lot of us as anarchist.
 
Henrin said:
I find it bizarre how liberals believe the first amendment excludes business. How does that work exactly?
Click to expand...

Liberals..hahahaha. Meyerson is a goddam socialist.
 
buck said:
Why is it so difficult for you to realize that a Christian not paying for something that someone else wants is not denying or disparaging individual liberty for anyone. In fact, forcing someone to pay for BC against their religious beliefs is the absence of liberty.

The employer is not saying that the employee can't take BC - a position that I and pretty much every one would disagree with. He is only saying that he does not want to pay for it as it violates his beliefs and his liberty.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean. I believe we could lower our tax burden by not enforcing purely religious moral laws and let religious authorities pick up that cost.

How is ensuring forms of contraception for all of your secular employees, any form of infringement on your religious beliefs?
 
danielpalos said:
I am not sure what you mean. I believe we could lower our tax burden by not enforcing purely religious moral laws and let religious authorities pick up that cost.

How is ensuring forms of contraception for all of your secular employees, any form of infringement on your religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

The employer that has religious beliefs that contradict with BC is being forced to pay for BC for their employees. It seems to me that it would be the equivalent of the government forcing Muslim employers to purchase alcohol for their employees or Jewish employers to purchase bacon for their employees.
 
buck said:
The employer that has religious beliefs that contradict with BC is being forced to pay for BC for their employees. It seems to me that it would be the equivalent of the government forcing Muslim employers to purchase alcohol for their employees or Jewish employers to purchase bacon for their employees.
Click to expand...

You may be missing the point about privately held beliefs. Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Ten Commandment of Religion.
 
danielpalos said:
You may be missing the point about privately held beliefs. Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Ten Commandment of Religion.
Click to expand...

I guess if you completely ignore the 1st amendment and not infringing on religious beliefs.
 
in general and in most cases individual rights > business/corporations

its just that simple

public realm = public rules and they are the same for us all, hobby Lobby doesn't get to have "special" rights :shrug:
 
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?
Click to expand...
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...




In WWII, in the USA, and in Germany also, corporations were kind of drafted to serve in the war.

Why do you think that they called Detroit "The Arsenal of Democracy"? I'll tell you why: Because in WWII the auto corporations there had to stop making cars and start building tanks, planes and etc. for the war effort.

Anyone who tried to buy a new car during WWII will verify that.




I totally agree that if corporations are going to have the same rights as individuals that they should have the same responsibilities and face the same sanctions that individuals face.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
in general and in most cases individual rights > business/corporations

its just that simple

public realm = public rules and they are the same for us all, hobby Lobby doesn't get to have "special" rights :shrug:
Click to expand...

I agree when the effect is that a right of the individual is negatively affected. However, in this case, respecting the 1st amendment rights of the business owner and allowing them freedom to exercise religion, does not have a negative effect on the rights of the individual. Free birth control paid by others is not a right that an individual should expect or should result in removing the rights from a business owner.
 
buck said:
I guess if you completely ignore the 1st amendment and not infringing on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

You may be missing the point about privately held beliefs due to the subjective nature of moral values. Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Ten Commandment of Religion.

No one is requiring participation only the opportunity of participation. It is not the same. In any case, why deny and disparage Individual Liberty to your fellow, secular and temporal citizens in the several States who also have a 1st Amendment.
 
buck said:
I agree when the effect is that a right of the individual is negatively affected.
1.) However, in this case, respecting the 1st amendment rights of the business owner and allowing them freedom to exercise religion, does not have a negative effect on the rights of the individual.

2.) Free birth control paid by others is not a right that an individual should expect or should result in removing the rights from a business owner.
Click to expand...

1.) the business owners 1st amendment rights and freedom of religion is not impacted, nobody forced the owner to play in the public realm and have a public access business which has nothing to do with religion.
It was their CHOICE and we all must play by the same rules, not have special rule for some.

If Hobby Lobby was a "CHURCH" id support them 100% but they are not so they must play by the same rules as everybody else its that simple

2.) again the business owner didnt have any rights removed he chose to open up a business

the "negative affect" argument is meaningless as its subjective, who gets to decided that? its better if we just all play by the same rules and not make special rules for hobby lobby otherwise whats next? wheres the list of religious believes that can and can not be forced on others?

No thanks, same rules for everybody since this is the public realm and its a public business.
 
buck said:
I agree when the effect is that a right of the individual is negatively affected. However, in this case, respecting the 1st amendment rights of the business owner and allowing them freedom to exercise religion, does not have a negative effect on the rights of the individual. Free birth control paid by others is not a right that an individual should expect or should result in removing the rights from a business owner.
Click to expand...

I remain unconvinced that the corporate owner's religious rights are being infringed on here. The owner can still practice whatever religion they want. Just because a law makes birth control part of a benefit package they negotiate for in good faith via free market mechanisms does not mean they suffer any personal harm. What you and others continue to put forward is a false argument of financial harm where again I say they are no more put upon in complying w/the PPACA than any other corporation. Their choices as corporate owners remain the same as all other corporations: provide insurance to their employees regardless of policy content or pay a tax penalty. You add birth contol into the mix to make it personal and weaving in religious freedom for that special touch.

One thing needs to be made clear: Justice Scalia got it wrong when he said in his ruling statement in support of Citizens United that free speech was not limited to people. It IS! The Preamble makes it clear that our founging document was intended to protect the rights of "We, the People" against government. Nowhere does it say "protect the rights of corporations, unions, associations or organizations whether for-profit or non-profit. What the Right-Wing activist justices did was make a ruling on both ideological and economic grounds.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
No one is requiring participation only the opportunity of participation. It is not the same. In any case, why deny and disparage Individual Liberty to your fellow, secular and temporal citizens in the several States who also have a 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

The business owner is being made to decide between violating their religious beliefs or hurting their business. Individual liberty for the employee is not being damaged in anyway. If the employer does not purchase it for them, they can purchase it for themselves. Individual liberty does not include having someone else purchase BC for you. That is the opposite of individual liberty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom