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 28 of 71 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #271
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.
    So long as you acknowledge that long-standing Supreme Court precedent holds that corporations do indeed have many first amendment rights, that's fine. I don't have a problem debating what you think might be best in terms of policy, but I have a hard time with those who are denying the existence of facts in front of them (not referring to you with this).

    They are bat**** insane to believe that a corporation, that is not alive, has no possible way of expressing itself and is not a human, can have rights.
    Here you're talking about something different. While you're right that many of the cases dealing with the particular types of rights enjoyed by Corporations have been close, it is the uniform opinion of the Court that corporations enjoy some rights. The framework you're arguing in support of simply doesn't exist. If you read Stevens' dissent, he's not saying that corporations can't have rights - he explicitly acknowledges that they have many rights. His disagreement is simply over the extent of a portion of those rights and whether there can be particular limitations on them.

    GM is nothing but a brand for which a business operates.
    GM is not a living person nor can it talk, move, or express emotion.

    It can not hire anyone, only a person can hire someone else.
    Using this logic, a company cannot build a defective product, only an individual can. Yet we allow people who are injured to sue the corporation. Why?

    That's not it at all, I was just saying that the reasons for grouping are not always more efficient in lobbying for a specific individuals cause.

    To be honest this isn't my main objection to corporate personhood.
    My biggest problem is the deferment of liability.
    Corporate personhood is not a method of avoiding liability, it is a method of ensuring valid liability exists.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #272
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Yeh, you have to use alot of "probaby's" and "maybe's" in that one because iwhen corporations "speak" for their employees or shareholders, it is purely by accident.
    Not really.
    A shareholder has invested in a given corporation, and expects to have whatever shares they hold increase in value. One method by which this is accomplished is by attempting to influence the laws which affect the corporation to its favor. That is in no way an accident.
    An employee of a given corporation is also effected by such actions. But that is, indeed, much more accidental.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    You simply cannot claim that a corporation consists of a group of individuals who speak as one.
    I didn't
    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    You cannot even identify who speaks.
    Well, actually, I could. It would be whomever presented the positions of the corporation, as decided by it's directors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    NO,NO, NO, They do not! Do you think that corporations are minny democracies? Shareholder control/ democracy is Soviet style rule.
    No, obviously corporations are not mini democracies. Well, I'm perhaps a level of democratic process is used in those controlled by a board of directors, but it by no means includes all of a given corporation's employees.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Employees of G.E. did not lobby for free trade so they could lose their jobs! That is just absurd.
    You make the assumption here that "Free trade" = "loss of jobs". Depending, of course, on your definition of "free trade" and "loss of jobs".
    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    As often as not, corporate values are in opposition to those of its employees and shareholders.
    Which is why I said corporations lobby political positions which are too the financial benefit of it's shareholders (and perhaps to some slight extent some of it's employees). Not the "values", or "morals", of it's shareholders and/or employees. Although I am sure that happens to some extent, probably more often in small corporations.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #273
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    How do you figure that?!
    Try reading post 218.

  4. #274
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So long as you acknowledge that long-standing Supreme Court precedent holds that corporations do indeed have many first amendment rights, that's fine. I don't have a problem debating what you think might be best in terms of policy, but I have a hard time with those who are denying the existence of facts in front of them (not referring to you with this).



    Here you're talking about something different. While you're right that many of the cases dealing with the particular types of rights enjoyed by Corporations have been close, it is the uniform opinion of the Court that corporations enjoy some rights. The framework you're arguing in support of simply doesn't exist. If you read Stevens' dissent, he's not saying that corporations can't have rights - he explicitly acknowledges that they have many rights. His disagreement is simply over the extent of a portion of those rights and whether there can be particular limitations on them.



    Using this logic, a company cannot build a defective product, only an individual can. Yet we allow people who are injured to sue the corporation. Why?
    That is what a corporation is for it takes the civil responsibility of the business. But it cant be held criminally liablel can it? Would the entire company be thrown in jail or just those responsible for the crime?

    Corporate personhood is not a method of avoiding liability, it is a method of ensuring valid liability exists.
    Last edited by Lord Tammerlain; 01-25-10 at 04:58 PM.

  5. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Well, if we are going to get very technical, then because of the 10th amendment, since Congress does not have the authority to regulate campaign contributions then Congress can not carry out those powers.
    I think you don't really know the Constitution very well. Where do you get the idea that Congress can't pass a law?

    Also, since people have a right to peacefully assemble, that would mean that the assembled group has a right to say what they want collectively, and therefore also have the authority to donate money collectively.
    Another wild stretch. So if I belong to 200 different groups then I can donate the maximum amount I'm allowed 201 times? Please, don't go from specious arguments to ridiculous ones.

  6. #276
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    That is what a corporation is for it takes the civil responsibility of the business. But it cant be held criminally liablel can it? Would the entire company be thrown in jail or just those responsible for the crime?
    You obviously can't throw a corporation in jail, so you would punish those employees that broke the law. However, corporations can be prosecuted criminally, though it doesn't happen frequently for very good reasons. A criminal indictment is essentially a death sentence to any publicly held company, and as the government realized with the Arthur Anderson debacle, is a terrible method of achieving deterrence. That's why we have deferred prosecution agreements.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #277
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    But ANY group is an assembling of people.
    I agree. What's your point, that once a group of people assemble then suddenly the "group", not the individuals, but the "group" now has the rights of a person? So I can just form group after group after group...

    So I can call ten people and tell them to meet me in the park. Once we get there we assemble and using our new found rights we all contribute the maximum amount of money we are allowed by law. Then we disperse and meet up 10 minutes later in the south corner of the park. Now we are a new group and we donate again... then we disperse and move to the north end of the park.

    I know its tough to be wrong but you really should think about the context and the possible rebuttals before you throw your crap against the wall. So far nothing has stuck.

  8. #278
    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 NoJingoLingo View Post
    Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...
    It doesn't mention people either!

    It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. NO law.

  9. #279
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    For one to think that a corporation has to same rights or should be treated the same as a man is insane!
    And the correct term is "manhood", not the damned politically correct "person-thing".
    Have we all gone insane?!
    I agree with Senator McCains take on this.. But he strikes me as too meek and mild.
    But campaign finance reform must not die; I do not think anybody , any man, or entity should give one red penny for anyone's political campaign.
    That political power can be bought....this is reprehensible.
    Instead, the political running time should be short and sweet and financed by all of the electorate(our government).
    And, yes, the taxes will increase...and NO apologies to the conservatives.

  10. #280
    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 earthworm View Post
    For one to think that a corporation has to same rights or should be treated the same as a man is insane!
    Nobody said that.

    Laws that restrict speech are unconstitutional. Pretty simple.

Page 28 of 71 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •