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 56 of 71 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #551
    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 The Mark View Post
    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."

  2. #552
    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 Rassales View Post
    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.
    Education.

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

  3. #553
    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 The Mark View Post
    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?

  4. #554
    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 misterman View Post
    If you think so. Not a single judge does.
    Seems to me like the recent decision was 5-4 NOT 9-0

  5. #555
    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
    Seems to me like the recent decision was 5-4 NOT 9-0
    I was referring to your views in general, not this decision.

  6. #556
    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 misterman View Post
    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.

    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?

  7. #557
    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
    Well you were responding to Vader but I shoved my nose in on that point.
    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.

  8. #558
    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 Iím 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.

  9. #559
    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
    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.

  10. #560
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    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.

Page 56 of 71 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... 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
  •