• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
The people who write for and own the New York Times enjoy freedom of the press.

Rights are for individuals, not groups.
Groups are not people, they do not have a collective brain, mouth, sexual organ etc.

Groups do not have rights.
Click to expand...

Correction, groups are granted rights by the government, they are not endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Correction, groups are granted rights by the government, they are not endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

Not precisely. The government is just an arm of the people, it is supposed to enforce the will of the people, from which rights actually arise. The idea that any creator imbued people with rights is, I agree, absurd.
 
RightinNYC said:
And the actors, voiceovers, and PR people who develop ads for corporations enjoy free speech. They're simply being paid by corporations to do what the corporation wants, much like reporters are paid by the NY Times to do what the Times wants.

There is no way to distinguish the two.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. The Constitution.

So you would agree that the government could ban the Catholic church, right? I mean, individual Catholics enjoy freedom of religion, but groups don't have rights.
Click to expand...
Again you ignore the Constitution. Try reading it.

Similarly, corporations, nonprofits, and unions could be banned from contacting Congress or speaking out on issues altogether. The individuals at those organizations might have the right to petition their governments and the right to free speech, but groups don't have rights.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!!
 
Harshaw said:
What about unsigned editorials coming from the organization itself?
Click to expand...
That should not be allowed but as I already stated, "the Press" is very different than it was in 1776

Besides, and advertising by corporation is the same thing. A person wrote it.
Click to expand...
But the AD is paid for, not by a person but a corporation. As long as the AD is not political in nature it's an AD and not political speech.
 
phattonez said:
So I'm free to do whatever I want, except when I deal with a company or produce something myself? So can I own a house? Well someone has to build that, so rights can be restricted. Can I turn on a light? Well someone has to provide it so rights can be restricted. Can I eat some food? Well someone has to make it so rights can be restricted.

If you restrict the rights of the organization then you restrict the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...
That's complete nonsense. What does that have to do with free speech?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
That's complete nonsense. What does that have to do with free speech?
Click to expand...

Well you said that groups have no rights, but groups are infused in pretty much every part of our lives. If groups have no rights then we basically have no rights.
 
phattonez said:
Who has proved that radio and tv are public airwaves and so are supposed to provide public service? That's not self-evident.
Click to expand...
The Government. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission]Federal Communications Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The amount of publicity you get is proportional to the amount of support that you have. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you are talking about or what relevance it has.
 
phattonez said:
Then what's an assembly to you?
Click to expand...
In the context we are speaking; A gathering of PEOPLE for a specific purpose. Going to work does not qualify as "assembling".
 
NoJingoLingo said:
In the context we are speaking; A gathering of PEOPLE for a specific purpose. Going to work does not qualify as "assembling".
Click to expand...

A gathering of people to form a corporation isn't a gathering of PEOPLE for a specific purpose? Your argument is dying and it's dying fast.
 
Harshaw said:
Because with the fund, you still have all the same Bill of Rights issues.
Click to expand...
Only for people who can't read the constitution... like the 5 republican judges on the SCOTUS.

Suppose they did. THEN what are you going to blame the problems on?

(Not to mention that pretty much whenever someone says something about "giving power to the people," they have a pretty solidified idea of what "the people" will do . . . and when "the people" inevitably don't do that . . . )
Click to expand...
Is that supposed to be some kind of intelligent argument or are you simply exercising your right?
 
phattonez said:
A gathering of people to form a corporation isn't a gathering of PEOPLE for a specific purpose? Your argument is dying and it's dying fast.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he is trying to say that not every person working for a corporation is in agreement with said corporation’s political positions? Or rather, the positions of those who decide what the corporation's political positions are?

Well, that would be an obvious truth. But what is stopping any given employee of a corporation from supporting a candidate which appeals to them?
 
Harshaw said:
1) His post was tangentially relevant.
2) You responded to his opinion with an opinion of your own.
Click to expand...

1) it was an analogy and a poor one as I noted.
2) It's not opinion it's FACT. When a sperm fuses with an egg it creates a zygote. A zygote is a single-cell that contains two copies of chromosomes—one copy from each parent. In the week following fertilization, the zygote undergoes rapid cell division and becomes a mass of cells known as a blastocyst. After more cell division, the blastocyst splits in half.

Now you are aware of the fact.
 
phattonez said:
:duel

No you're wrong!
Click to expand...

A) I guess you are right.
B) I guess you are right.

But only if your position is that since corporations are not people then they cannot break a law or kill someone, only the people who work there can do that. If that is your position then I will agree.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

Harshaw said:
Even if that actually made sense, which it does not . . . you just pulled it out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Then dispute it instead of just barking.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

nerv14 said:
organizations, such as corporations, have freedom of speech as much as an individual because organizations are comprised of individuals.
Click to expand...
No they don't have that right because a corporation is not a person itself and those people who work there already have their right protected.
 
Harshaw said:
Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations because it doesn't mention them, I direct your attention to the Ninth Amendment.
Click to expand...
Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You have a hard time understanding the difference between "people" and "corporations". :roll:
 
phattonez said:
I forgot who it was, but one of the founding fathers argued against a bill of rights because it would be used to say that because a certain right isn't listed in the bill of rights that it would be used to deny rights.

So this argument is nonsense, especially when you consider the 9th amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
Click to expand...
You ought not use someones argument so quickly. The 9th amendment only lends credence to my position.
 
Harshaw said:
You're just making things up to try to get past a glaring inconsistency in your views.

"The press" is an action, like speech. It's not a group.
Click to expand...
There is no inconsistency with my view. I didn't say the NYT was a group. "The Press" (in 1776) was the vehicle (print media) responsible for gathering and publishing news.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

NoJingoLingo said:
No they don't have that right because a corporation is not a person itself and those people who work there already have their right protected.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
 
phattonez said:
Well you said that groups have no rights, but groups are infused in pretty much every part of our lives. If groups have no rights then we basically have no rights.
Click to expand...
That's completely ridiculous. If that were true then if groups didn't exist, people wouldn't exist. See how ignorant that is?
 
phattonez said:
That proves nothing. The government is wrong about that.
Click to expand...
:rofl So that's your rebuttal, that the government is wrong about the rules that you denied exist...

What's so bad if I'm running for office and I get some financial support for my campaign from GM?
Click to expand...
Because the PEOPLE can't compete monetarily with GM therefore you get to dominate the election process. Not very democratic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom