• 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
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
I was using the word "favor" to refer to any of the multitude of potential ways other politicians, lobbiests, businesses, and entities of various types can repay a politician for supporting/opposing a bill that they want/don't want.
Click to expand...

Such as?

Favors was the wrong word.
Click to expand...

Got a better word?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
Such as?



Got a better word?
Click to expand...

Not really.

It seems we disagree on something.

What would you depict as a politicians job?

I usually think “represent their constituents.” In other words, vote/lobby/legislate for bills/changes to bills in process/whatever that will support the views of their constituents and improve their lives.

Note that "improve their lives" is a highly subjective and nuanced objective.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
Not really.

It seems we disagree on something.

What would you depict as a politicians job?

I usually think “represent their constituents.”
Click to expand...

Right - do them favors.

In other words, vote/lobby/legislate for bills/changes to bills in process/whatever that will support the views of their constituents and improve their lives.

Note that "improve their lives" is a highly subjective and nuanced objective.
Click to expand...

I noted that.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
Right - do them favors.



I noted that.
Click to expand...

So, are you contending that the current system of government is as it should be, in general, and what some refer to as "corruption" is actually part of the politician’s job?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
So, are you contending that the current system of government is as it should be, in general, and what some refer to as "corruption" is actually part of the politician’s job?
Click to expand...

I don't think I should answer that until you start getting specific about what you mean by "favors" and corruption and all that.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
I don't think I should answer that until you start getting specific about what you mean by "favors" and corruption and all that.
Click to expand...
Hmm...

After you asked me what the definition of "favors" was, I realized that it didn't really apply to what I was speaking of.

But what I was attempting to refer to was corruption. Yes, I suppose that is the word that fits.

This discribes what I refer too.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption]Political corruption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Now, as to specific proven instances of such, I can't think of any right off the top of my head.

But, everyone knows they happen, so obviously they do...:mrgreen:
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
Hmm...

After you asked me what the definition of "favors" was, I realized that it didn't really apply to what I was speaking of.

But what I was attempting to refer to was corruption. Yes, I suppose that is the word that fits.

This discribes what I refer too.
Political corruption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, as to specific proven instances of such, I can't think of any right off the top of my head.

But, everyone knows they happen, so obviously they do...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Okay, so you don't oppose favors, only corruption, which you don't define.

Hey, great - everyone opposes corruption! Including me! So we all agree that corruption is bad. Great.

Seriously, corruption is already pretty well defined, and pretty much illegal already.
 
Last edited:
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
Okay, so you don't oppose favors, only corruption, which you don't define.
Click to expand...
I didn't? That was what the wiki link was for. I didn't feel like typing it all out. I'm lazy.
misterman said:
Hey, great - everyone opposes corruption! Including me! So we all agree that corruption is bad. Great.

Seriously, corruption is already pretty well defined, and pretty much illegal already.
Click to expand...

Well, to some extent. But everyone knows it goes on anyway, so obviously it does. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
The history of corporations suggests otherwise. Corporations were formed for a public purpose and at the pleasure of the sovereign; their charter was subject to revocation when they had served their purpose. The Framers would never have imagined that such grandiose power could be granted to corporations. The 1886 decision which appeared to announce that corporations were persons, was never argued. It simply makes no sense that they could have imagined the concept of corporate personhood.
Click to expand...

You know, repeating the same claim over and over is not the same as showing that claim to be true.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

NoJingoLingo said:
Exactly, let's not forget that Xcompany can spend whatever they want on a complete lie.

Sure someone could sue for slander but large corporations can afford the lawyers necessary to win.
Click to expand...

How can a corporation do that when, according to you, corporations can't do anything, and only people can?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Harshaw said:
How can a corporation do that when, according to you, corporations can't do anything, and only people can?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and how can lawyers do anything for corporations if they have no legal rights anyway?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
As you should know quite well, voting is not terribly meaningful if the choice is between corporate lackey red and corporate lackey blue. Take the health care debate....
Click to expand...

What difference does it make if it's "corporate lackey red" and "corporate lackey blue" or "really rich guy red" and "really rich guy" blue?

I'm not, by the way, buying into your premise of corporate control of elections at all. Just pointing out that under your construct, the only thing which would change, if your premise is correct, is the name on the checking account. What does it matter if it's "Inc." or "Jim Smith"?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
The history of corporations suggests otherwise. Corporations were formed for a public purpose and at the pleasure of the sovereign; their charter was subject to revocation when they had served their purpose. The Framers would never have imagined that such grandiose power could be granted to corporations. The 1886 decision which appeared to announce that corporations were persons, was never argued. It simply makes no sense that they could have imagined the concept of corporate personhood.
Click to expand...

By the way, not only have you not shown this to be true (see my earlier post), you're equivocating on the point. Even if the Framers didn't or wouldn't view corporations as "persons," you have not, in any way, come close to showing that they wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to them, or to groups of people in general.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Harshaw said:
What difference does it make if it's "corporate lackey red" and "corporate lackey blue" or "really rich guy red" and "really rich guy" blue?

I'm not, by the way, buying into your premise of corporate control of elections at all. Just pointing out that under your construct, the only thing which would change, if your premise is correct, is the name on the checking account. What does it matter if it's "Inc." or "Jim Smith"?
Click to expand...

I think all campaign contributions should have limitations. I would suggest a cap equaling the average yearly individual earning. I don't want Bill Gates to have the power to alter the results of an election anymore than I want Cargill to be able to do that.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
I think all campaign contributions should have limitations. I would suggest a cap equaling the average yearly individual earning. I don't want Bill Gates to have the power to alter the results of an election anymore than I want Cargill to be able to do that.
Click to expand...

Contributors don't have the power to alter elections. Only voters do.
 
Cassandra said:
I think all campaign contributions should have limitations. I would suggest a cap equaling the average yearly individual earning. I don't want Bill Gates to have the power to alter the results of an election anymore than I want Cargill to be able to do that.
Click to expand...

How much free speech is "enough," in your estimation? Should there be a limit, too, to how much a media organ can editorialize for its pet cause or candidate? Including, of course, "news" content extolling its/their virtue?
 
Last edited:
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
Contributors don't have the power to alter elections. Only voters do.
Click to expand...

Contributions and ads have the power to alter votes. Let me remind you, the majority of America is downright stupid.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

repeter said:
Contributions and ads have the power to alter votes. Let me remind you, the majority of America is downright stupid.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that to be true, and history is replete with many examples of the bigger money and bigger campaign blitz losing. Look at MA, last week.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Harshaw said:
By the way, not only have you not shown this to be true (see my earlier post), you're equivocating on the point. Even if the Framers didn't or wouldn't view corporations as "persons," you have not, in any way, come close to showing that they wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to them, or to groups of people in general.
Click to expand...

I would think that the judges who call themselves "originalists" would have to show that the Framers viewed corporations as "persons". They did not do that because they cannot. I actually don't give a toss about originalism. What concerns me is the obvious perversion of democracy that has resulted from the flow of money into the process.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
I would think that the judges who call themselves "originalists" would have to show that the Framers viewed corporations as "persons". They did not do that because they cannot. I actually don't give a toss about originalism. What concerns me is the obvious perversion of democracy that has resulted from the flow of money into the process.
Click to expand...

You're the one making the factual claims, and basing your premise on them. It's up to you to show it.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
I would think that the judges who call themselves "originalists" would have to show that the Framers viewed corporations as "persons". They did not do that because they cannot.
Click to expand...

Personhood is irrelevant.

What concerns me is the obvious perversion of democracy that has resulted from the flow of money into the process.
Click to expand...

You can't decide that some money or speech is corrupt just because you don't like it or where it comes from.
 
Last edited:
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
Ah, so you don't support democracy then. Your argument is simply absurd. Everything an elected official does that benefits the people is a "favor."
Click to expand...

sigh....Democracy isn't the issue. Corruption by humans is. you know beeter then what your posting...
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

pugetsoundwa said:
sigh....Democracy isn't the issue. Corruption by humans is. you know beeter then what your posting...
Click to expand...

What exactly is it that you think "democracy" is?
 
Cassandra said:
I think all campaign contributions should have limitations. I would suggest a cap equaling the average yearly individual earning. I don't want Bill Gates to have the power to alter the results of an election anymore than I want Cargill to be able to do that.
Click to expand...

And how would that be enforced?

Again, you can't just make broad pronouncements about what sounds cool if you don't understand how campaign finance has failed so miserably over the past 4 decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom