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 12 of 71 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #111
    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 Areopagitican View Post
    I think that's because corporations A: respect the laws of the country B: don't attempt to kill civilians.
    Actually, sometimes corporations fail on both regards.

    But of course, nobody loses all their rights just because they don't respect the law or try to kill people. That's silly.

  2. #112
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    That doesn't answer the question, though. They are a corporation.

    Does the First Amendment protect them or not?
    You're saying that:

    Newspapers should have freedom of the press applied to them, even when they are corporations. Since some are corporations, the principle must be applied to all corporations.

    I am responding:

    Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be corporations. If we decide that newspapers cannot be, then it pokes a hole in your notion that corporations ought to be free to speak under the first amendment simply because some newspapers are corporations.



    The framework of our democracy is breaking down. 'Radical' notions like rethinking corporatism in favor of a real free market economy will probably be ignored because of complacency. It is simply not painful enough, yet.

    A symptom of the growing framework for tyranny is this notion of granting corporations the rights of individuals because they are composed of individuals. Applying the notion of freedom of speech to corporations is analogous to saying that because corporations represent the interests of their owners, they should be allowed to vote. Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.

  3. #113
    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
    yeah you can.

    its done with no problems all over the world (including here)
    No you can't, not with the First Amendment in place. Thank God for that, it protects us from people like you.

    why can't i donate as much money as i want to any candidate in America?
    Because there's no freedom of donation in the Constitution. There is freedom of speech.

    This supreme court decision had nothing to do with political donations, only speech.

  4. #114
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    You're saying that:

    Newspapers should have freedom of the press applied to them, even when they are corporations. Since some are corporations, the principle must be applied to all corporations.

    I am responding:

    Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be corporations. If we decide that newspapers cannot be, then it pokes a hole in your notion that corporations ought to be free to speak under the first amendment simply because some newspapers are corporations.



    The framework of our democracy is breaking down. 'Radical' notions like rethinking corporatism in favor of a real free market economy will probably be ignored because of complacency. It is simply not painful enough, yet.

    A symptom of the growing framework for tyranny is this notion of granting corporations the rights of individuals because they are composed of individuals. Applying the notion of freedom of speech to corporations is analogous to saying that because corporations represent the interests of their owners, they should be allowed to vote. Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.
    Exactly,
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #115
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    What a load of crap.

    Everyone has self-interest. Deciding that some shouldn't be able to speak just because they want to make a profit is crazy. I want to make a profit too, by the way.

    You can't just decide that some speech is corrupt or evil and restrict it on those grounds.
    I'm not suggesting the speech itself is evil or corrupt. I'm saying the basis on which corporations (or unions) speak is fundamentally different than when individuals do it because the nature of their interests are fundamentally different. They have ONLY narrow, economic self-interest to look after. All other considerations are inappropriate. Individuals must balance their own self-interest against the wider interests of society. Corporations deliberately don't care, except in so far as they will look bad.

    On the other matter, there is a fundamental difference between news corporations when they report the news and when they lobby on behalf of their own profit interests. Anytime a conflict of interest is possible in news reporting, journalistic ethics require full disclosure of those interests within the story. And those instances are relatively rare. Corporations will only invest money in speech where their interests are at stake.

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    ,... Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.
    I'm sure this logic is a shining example of at least one of these fallacies.

    No time to dig it out right now.

    My reponse to your comment (above) is to make you aware of the difference in reality between a vote and speech. No-one has to listen to a corporation 'speak.' So, their speech no matter how compelling and funded can be easily ignored.

    Votes, on the other hand must be counted. Respected. Must be factored into policy decisions.

  7. #117
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    I'm still debating this issue personally and don't have a definite opinion.

    Having been out in the wonderful world of work for well over two decades I have seen firsthand that corporations can be stone-cold beyotches and, in their own way, just as oppressive of their employees as an authoritarian government. "So Find another job" doesn't work so well when opportunities are limited and most corporations are acting in similar fashion.

    On that note, I am somewhat open to the notion of government forcing corporations to treat their workers with a little decency... however there is a careful balance that has to be struck there. Too much well-meaning intervention will render a corp unprofitable, and jobs will be lost, raises and promotions curtailed, stocks fall and Bad Things Happen.

    On the other hand I am a capitalist, and believe that for the most part the "free market" works best when impeded least. I suppose you could say I favor necessary but minimal regulation.

    The notion of refusing to recognize corps as "persons", or of refusing to recognize their legal existence at all, has a certain appeal. I'm old enough to remember when most businesses around here were Mom and Pop stores, or sole proprietorships / limited partnerships, before all the big-box stuff moved in and made it hard to compete. Actually I had a small business of my own twenty years ago, in partnership with my father. We went under because we could not compete with the chain franchises.

    OTOH, like most extreme measures I'm not sure whether eliminating or severely restricting corporations would actually do more harm than good. Without corporations there is no stock market, yes? That could have its good points, but we'd be talking about dismantling a couple centuries' worth of economic structure...what would take the place of it all? There are things that small businesses do better than big corps, but it is hard to imagine that we could do away with big corps entirely without some serious troubles.

    Jury is still out for me on corporations...

    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #118
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    I'm sure this logic is a shining example of at least one of these fallacies.

    No time to dig it out right now.

    My reponse to your comment (above) is to make you aware of the difference in reality between a vote and speech. No-one has to listen to a corporation 'speak.' So, their speech no matter how compelling and funded can be easily ignored.

    Votes, on the other hand must be counted. Respected. Must be factored into policy decisions.
    There is a difference between votes and speech, it must be acknowledged. However, that may not be relevant to the main point (which still stands): That a right or privilege conferred on individuals does not automatically translate to being conferred on the entities those individuals band together to create. The right may be conferred, if it is judged to be advantageous to society, but it doesn't happen automatically.

    No beneficial purpose is served by conferring on Corporations the right to free speech. And much harm is done by doing so.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    fyi Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    No beneficial purpose is served by conferring on Corporations the right to free speech. And much harm is done by doing so.
    When you speak in such absolutes, you leave yourself wide open to losing your credibility. As it only takes one exception to your (absolute) claim,... to prove it false.

    You may be able to list several examples to support your claim that "much harm is done" by giving corporations the 'right to free speech.' And most of those examples will likely be 'sibjective.'

    In contrast,... it would only take one example where granting a corporation the 'right to free speech' is 'beneficial' to destroy your above (absolute) claim.

  10. #120
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    When you speak in such absolutes, you leave yourself wide open to losing your credibility. As it only takes one exception to your (absolute) claim,... to prove it false.

    You may be able to list several examples to support your claim that "much harm is done" by giving corporations the 'right to free speech.' And most of those examples will likely be 'sibjective.'

    In contrast,... it would only take one example where granting a corporation the 'right to free speech' is 'beneficial' to destroy your above (absolute) claim.
    So, go for it.

    The point will still stand, though it may be weakened slightly. The point doesn't require an absolute in order to be valid. If it did, I would have been much more cautious about using one. And I really don't think I'll lose much sleep over the vanishingly small hit to my credibility, but thanks anyway.

Page 12 of 71 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262 ... 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
  •