View Poll Results: Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    18 18.18%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    81 81.82%
Page 10 of 71 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #91
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,501

    Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The free speech for groups nonsense is a side effect.
    There are many groups which are not corporations which run ads, campaigns, etc. It's hardly just a "side effect" of the formation of corporations.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #92
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    There are many groups which are not corporations which run ads, campaigns, etc.
    Yes, exactly. Here are a few examples:

    political parties
    charities and other non-profits
    schools and universities
    think tanks
    media outlets

    By their logic, none would have free speech rights. Absurd.

  3. #93
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    do you really need someone to explain to you the damage done by restrictions on speech?
    I do need to be explained the damage done if the government restricts some very specific vehicles for speech.

    It is important to recognize that the helpful restrictions on organizations spreading their view do not stifle what can be said, but where it can be said.


    In many nations for instance, campaigns are funded by public money, so organizations with large amounts of money can not unjustly influence the agenda. Instead, policy is influenced on what the people think on a field leveled by monetary means.

    If you have any examples at all about how this has transformed to something horrible in a democratic nations, then I would like to hear that. But right now, those types of restrictions only have positive effects.

    We would most likely have more third parties if we had those types of regulations.

  4. #94
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Yes, exactly. Here are a few examples:

    political parties
    charities and other non-profits
    schools and universities
    think tanks
    media outlets

    By their logic, none would have free speech rights. Absurd.
    There is a difference from having free speech, and one of those organizations promoting a certain public policy. They are free to say whatever they want in their organization and can say who they support, but they should not be able to promote a certain issue in an election without some regulations.


    You can claim as much as you want that it violates the first amendment, and maybe campaign finance regulation does, but there are still no downsides if you look at the actual effect of many campaign finance policies. If some campaign finance policy only acts in a positive way, then it should be preserved regardless of a certain interpretation of the first amendment.

  5. #95
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    It is important to recognize that the helpful restrictions on organizations spreading their view do not stifle what can be said, but where it can be said.
    Classic Doublespeak.

    In many nations for instance, campaigns are funded by public money, so organizations with large amounts of money can not unjustly influence the agenda. Instead, policy is influenced on what the people think on a field leveled by monetary means.
    I support public funded campaigns. We have them for presidential elections, coupled with spending limits.

    But corporations aren't running for office, nor does this decision have anything to do with corporations giving money to campaigns. It's just about corporations expressing themselves directly.

    We would most likely have more third parties if we had those types of regulations.
    No we wouldn't. Two parties are the natural result of a winner-take-all system. A third party can't win unless it displaces one of the first two. Voila - two parties again.

  6. #96
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    There is a difference from having free speech, and one of those organizations promoting a certain public policy.
    Well, no, there isn't.

    They are free to say whatever they want in their organization and can say who they support, but they should not be able to promote a certain issue in an election without some regulations.
    Why not?

    You can claim as much as you want that it violates the first amendment, and maybe campaign finance regulation does, but there are still no downsides if you look at the actual effect of many campaign finance policies. If some campaign finance policy only acts in a positive way, then it should be preserved regardless of a certain interpretation of the first amendment.
    It's not your place to decide what is positive or not, nor the goverment's. If it violates the First Amendment, it should be struck down, period. If you don't like it, amend the Constitution.

  7. #97
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?
    I am not sure about actual person hood but under the first amendment we have the right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. A corporation would technically be an assembly of people much the same way unions,religious groups, NRA and other lobby groups and other groups of people. So therefore the first amendment applies to them as well. This is why I think the real is issues is campaign donations not personhood.

    I however do not believe that donating money is speech seeing how speech is verbal and or nonverbal communication(written,typed, sign language and etc) with words(this also means that flag burning is not speech) nor is donating money a form of addressing grievances to the government since money is not communication. I could be wrong but I do not ever remember in history class of any of our founding forefathers saying that donating money to politicians is a form of speech or addressing grievances to the government. Also we should keep in mind our constitutional rights only apply to American citizens,so no foreign government,foreign company/multinational companies should have the right to petition our government for anything. So I do not believe limiting campaign contributions is a violation of the constitution(unless there is a amendment that specifically says there is not limit to campaign contributions ) and if one person is limited in donating money then so should everyone else.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 01-23-10 at 12:44 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #98
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Whenever Corporations assume the "responsibilities" of a person, then them having the "rights" of a person should be considered. but not until then.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  9. #99
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Classic Doublespeak.
    Meh

    I support public funded campaigns. We have them for presidential elections, coupled with spending limits.
    But doesn't that violate my freedom of speech to donate as much as I want to a certain candidate?

    If you support some types of campaign finance regulations, then you can't go hiding behind the first amendment because you are already violating it.

    But corporations aren't running for office, nor does this decision have anything to do with corporations giving money to campaigns. It's just about corporations expressing themselves directly.
    donating to a campaign and campaigning for a politician function as the same thing, so they should be treated the same.
    No we wouldn't. Two parties are the natural result of a winner-take-all system. A third party can't win unless it displaces one of the first two. Voila - two parties again.
    Yeah I guess I agree with that though.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Well, no, there isn't.



    Why not?



    It's not your place to decide what is positive or not, nor the goverment's. If it violates the First Amendment, it should be struck down, period. If you don't like it, amend the Constitution.
    It sounded like that you are also ok with violating my right to donate to who i want. So you are also violating the first amendment

  10. #100
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    "A true Democracy will only work, until it is discovered that votes can be bought"--Ole Tom Jefferson
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

Page 10 of 71 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •