• 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!

Corporate Personhood

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%

  • Total voters
    64
Employees of a corporation do have indirect access to corporation funds...via their paycheck, at the very least.
This pretty much disrespects the labor of every person. Once the funds are paid to them (and they are paid because they are owed), those are no longer "corporation funds," any more than the money paid to any vendor for a purchase are "corporation funds."
 
This pretty much disrespects the labor of every person. Once the funds are paid to them (and they are paid because they are owed), those are no longer "corporation funds," any more than the money paid to any vendor for a purchase are "corporation funds."
Well, true.

But that does not discount my point.

The employees work for the corporation to earn their pay, and the corporation pays them for their work.
With corporate funds.
As soon as said corporate funds are paid to the employee, they cease to become corporate funds...But it is still "access" to such funds.
 
Well, true.

But that does not discount my point.

The employees work for the corporation to earn their pay, and the corporation pays them for their work.
With corporate funds.
As soon as said corporate funds are paid to the employee, they cease to become corporate funds...But it is still "access" to such funds.
In what meaningful sense? That's like saying if you write me a check I have "access" to your bank account. Money flows into and out of every account in the country--do we all have "access" to everyone else's account?
 
I was referring to your views in general, not this decision.
Well you were responding to Vader but I shoved my nose in on that point. :lol:

Shall we look back at the vote tally on all of those "personhood" verdicts to see if even one judge dissented on them or would you prefer to withdraw that statement?
 
Well you were responding to Vader but I shoved my nose in on that point. :lol:

Oh, sorry, I even looked it up, but missed the author.

Shall we look back at the vote tally on all of those "personhood" verdicts to see if even one judge dissented on them or would you prefer to withdraw that statement?

Again, I was responding to his views in general, not the issue of personhood. Read his posts.
 
But I’m not wrong.
Employees of a corporation do have indirect access to corporation funds...via their paycheck, at the very least.

They do not control those funds, except through how they do their jobs, which affects the company to a degree, depending on its size.
You're quite wrong. I won't bother proving it since another poster already did in post 551 and 553.

Both, as they are one and the same.
Only if you believe in corporate personhood. Otherwise, the economy should serve the people. Businesses are the engine of the economy but the people should be the owners of the ecomony just like a business owner is the owner of said business and the employees are the engine of that business. In our corporatocracy the people are simply consumers. We have lost control of our ecomony and now everything we do is for the benefit of corporations with the failed Reaganomics mantra of -what's good for corporations is good for the people.- We've seen time and again that this is not true and the evidence today is more clear than it's been since the 1920s. The stock market is up, productivity is up, wages are down and unemployment is up. We bailed out Wall Street to stop the damage, all of which proves that Reaganomics doesn't actually work.

Obviously, some actions a corporation makes can cause harm to individuals or communities.
Yup.

Additionally obvious is that those actions can be attributed to individuals working for said corporation.
Nope. More often than not it's the policies of the corporation that allowed the individuals to do the actions and then the corporation promptly tries to cover it up. History provides us these facts.

Our laws against such need reinforcement in some places, and perhaps rewriting (i.e. legislation) in others. And such laws need to be strictly enforced. Consequences need to be known and harsh, to discourage corporations from doing such.
So you DO see the problem and you agree that corps need regulation to keep them from doing harm to the economy.

This is not a problem of corporations. This is a problem of politicians.

Sure, corporations might be influencing politicians to an extent, and in some cases, a great extent. Their constituents need to fire them, if necessary.
You say it's not a problem of corporations and then tell us that corporations do "influence" politicians. So the bribing or blackmailing isn't the problem it's the guys who accept the bribes or go along with the blackmail. I say it's a problem with BOTH.

But corporate influence of politicians is simply a extension of individual influence, namely by those who control said corporation.
Seriously, you are really grasping at straws.

To take away the use of their funds is to take away part of their free speech.
Who's free speech? The owner of the corporation or the corporations themselves? We know the owner has free speech as a person/citizen. If that owner was unemployed and didn't own the corporation would he still have his free speech protected? According to what you just said, the owner would have no free speech if he didn't own a corporation.
 
Who's free speech? The owner of the corporation or the corporations themselves? We know the owner has free speech as a person/citizen. If that owner was unemployed and didn't own the corporation would he still have his free speech protected? According to what you just said, the owner would have no free speech if he didn't own a corporation.

Okay, try this on for size - you can have all the free speech you want, but you can't spend any of your money on it either. No soapbox, no megaphone, no ads, nothing. Just your voice.
 
I think a considerable portion of the concern over this ruling is the notion that people with a lot of money can buy elections--they can produce messages that leave false impressions but that saturate the political sphere. Anyone believe that?

The unbridled ability to communicate in proportion to one's wealth is bad for politics, assuming we believe that elections can be purchased by those who can dominate political communication.
 
If you think so. Not a single judge does.

Says you!

No I"m not. I couldn't be more on topic. I'm talking about the First Amendment.

Actually, you're evading. We are NOT discussing freedom of religion. We are discussing corporate personhood.... my neo-liberal friend.

Your views don't even reflect a strictly literal interpretation of the words as written.

Wrong again! Our forefathers intended to protect the famers, citizens, and various other INDIVIDUALS that came to this land to avoid government persecution.

I am strictly interpreting the document as it was written by our forefathers.
 
Says you!

Says 100+ years of detailed caselaw.

Actually, you're evading. We are NOT discussing freedom of religion. We are discussing corporate personhood.... my neo-liberal friend.

No, YOU brought up Constitional rights. Freedom of religion is one of those. YOU are evading.

Wrong again! Our forefathers intended to protect the famers, citizens, and various other INDIVIDUALS that came to this land to avoid government persecution.

And your views clearly aren't reflected in reality.

I am strictly interpreting the document as it was written by our forefathers.

So churches don't have freedom of religion, only people? And newspapers don't have freedom of speech, only people? And the government could confiscate corporate property without compensation?

You dodged these questions once, you'll do it again.
 
Okay, try this on for size - you can have all the free speech you want, but you can't spend any of your money on it either. No soapbox, no megaphone, no ads, nothing. Just your voice.
Well, that would work as well except that in their supreme wisdom, the SCOTUS has decided that money = speech.

But if it were possible for people to get unbiased news and then gather to discuss politics or print a pamphlet themselves and distribute it (freedom of press) and then go out and vote. That would be great... didn't we have such a system, once?
 
I think a considerable portion of the concern over this ruling is the notion that people with a lot of money can buy elections--they can produce messages that leave false impressions but that saturate the political sphere. Anyone believe that?

The unbridled ability to communicate in proportion to one's wealth is bad for politics, assuming we believe that elections can be purchased by those who can dominate political communication.
I don't have a problem with a citizen wanting to spend their own money to buy ad space or a TV commercial, et al.. I disagree that Joe the CEO can take corporate funds and spend it to blackmail a candidate.
 
So churches don't have freedom of religion, only people? And newspapers don't have freedom of speech, only people? And the government could confiscate corporate property without compensation?

You dodged these questions once, you'll do it again.

They are dealt with specifically in the first amendment. Where are corporations dealt with in the Constitution?
 
Well, that would work as well except that in their supreme wisdom, the SCOTUS has decided that money = speech.

Did it?

But if it were possible for people to get unbiased news and then gather to discuss politics or print a pamphlet themselves and distribute it (freedom of press) and then go out and vote. That would be great... didn't we have such a system, once?

So you want to the government to decide what's biased and what's not and let it suppress messages that it thinks the voters shouldn't hear.

Again, please read your own words. They should scare you.
 
They are dealt with specifically in the first amendment.

Yes. And they are groups, not people. So that means groups are protected by the Constitution too. So saying that corporations have no rights because they aren't people doesn't wash.
 
Yes. And they are groups, not people. So that means groups are protected by the Constitution too. So saying that corporations have no rights because they aren't people doesn't wash.
Corporations aren't just groups--they are limited liability groups. Their ability to profit, to do harm, and to seek after their own best interest is unlimited, but their liability for bad actions is limited. When we offer them equal rights, we cannot also require of them equal responsibilities. That's a problem.
 
Only if you believe in corporate personhood. Otherwise, the economy should serve the people. Businesses are the engine of the economy but the people should be the owners of the ecomony just like a business owner is the owner of said business and the employees are the engine of that business. In our corporatocracy the people are simply consumers.

So, in your universe stockholders are what, robots, or dogs?

We have lost control of our ecomony

In a free market, no one has "control" over the economy.

We should get back to being free.

Government control of the economy has been proven, 100% of every case in history, to suck. Right now the Messiah has control of the economy, and his ignorant ass doesn't blink at the notion of 1500 billion dollar deficits.

and now everything we do is for the benefit of corporations with the failed Reaganomics

Bla bla bla.

Too bad for you, "Reaganomics" didn't fail.
 
Corporations aren't just groups--they are limited liability groups. Their ability to profit, to do harm, and to seek after their own best interest is unlimited, but their liability for bad actions is limited. When we offer them equal rights, we cannot also require of them equal responsibilities. That's a problem.

What legal responsibilities come with freedom of speech? What exactly are you legally required to do in order to have it? If you don't live up to those responsibilities, can your freedom of speech be taken away too?
 
What legal responsibilities come with freedom of speech? What exactly are you legally required to do in order to have it? If you don't live up to those responsibilities, can your freedom of speech be taken away too?
Actually, there are all sorts of ways that speech is limited by responsibilities--you can't defame people, you can't incite to riot, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't use "fighting words." There are penalties including jail for some of these offenses.

You can, of course, lie and distort in order to fool people, so long as you're influencing their votes rather than persuading them to buy a product. Doing more to allow this sort of thing on a grand scale seems like a bad idea.

If corporations can convince us that we need to use a product like mouthwash (which actually causes bad breath) because without it our social lives will crumble to the dust of loneliness, I don't think I want to trust them with more influence over politics.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, do you need me to provide the source?

So you want to the government to decide what's biased and what's not and let it suppress messages that it thinks the voters shouldn't hear.
Please quote where I said that. Nothing in what you quoted and then responded to has the word government nor implies it, yet you created a statement that I didn't say.

Again, please read your own words. They should scare you.
What's scary is that you continually interpret what I say instead of just reading what I say, it's the same problem you have with the Constitution.
 
Yes. And they are groups, not people. So that means groups are protected by the Constitution too. So saying that corporations have no rights because they aren't people doesn't wash.
No, it means THOSE "groups" (which aren't groups but ideas as you well noted in this very thread) are protected by the first amendment. I truly don't understand how you can continually dismiss this.
 
Corporations aren't just groups--they are limited liability groups. Their ability to profit, to do harm, and to seek after their own best interest is unlimited, but their liability for bad actions is limited. When we offer them equal rights, we cannot also require of them equal responsibilities. That's a problem.

Religion and the Press aren't groups either, they are ideals. "We the People" wanted those ideals protected so that the government could not destroy or control them. You are also conflating the different forms of business ownership. An LLC is not the same as being an S Corp or plainly Incorporated etc.

But you're on the right track! ;)
 
Actually, there are all sorts of ways that speech is limited by responsibilities--you can't defame people, you can't incite to riot, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't use "fighting words." There are penalties including jail for some of these offenses.

Didn't see these coming.

Yes, there are in some limited circumstances. And corporations are subject to those too. They can be sued for libel for instance.

But there are no conditions whatsoever on political speech.

You can, of course, lie and distort in order to fool people, so long as you're influencing their votes rather than persuading them to buy a product. Doing more to allow this sort of thing on a grand scale seems like a bad idea.

Doesn't matter if you think it's a bad idea. It's not for you to decide. The Constitution says no.

If corporations can convince us that we need to use a product like mouthwash (which actually causes bad breath) because without it our social lives will crumble to the dust of loneliness, I don't think I want to trust them with more influence over politics.

That would make a great argument for restricting the speech of just about anyone who disagree with.
 
Back
Top Bottom