• 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
The Mark said:
Well, one would think that, even if no legal consequences were leveled against an individual person, internal corporate consequences would occur, if their actions negatively effected the corporation. Or at least such is how things SHOULD work, in any reasonable corporation. You screw up enough, you get hurt.
Click to expand...
First, lets assume we are talking about C corporations.
Aren't you arguing that the investors come together in some sort of "group speech"? The C.E.O. is just an employee with a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits regardless of his personal political predisposition- so, if the investors are the primary source of the group speaking, how come they have no vote, no input, on how the group (corporation) speaks?
 
Cassandra said:
First, lets assume we are talking about C corporations.
Aren't you arguing that the investors come together in some sort of "group speech"? The C.E.O. is just an employee with a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits regardless of his personal political predisposition- so, if the investors are the primary source of the group speaking, how come they have no vote, no input, on how the group (corporation) speaks?
Click to expand...
But they DO have a vote...In a way.
By investing in that corporation, they are saying "here is some of my money, I expect to have it increase in the long-term."
In that way, they are also saying "I agree with what methods you use to increase the value of your corporation."
If they don't agree with the corporation's political positions, they either disagree lightly, but still want to improve their financial situation, or don't have any idea what the corporation actually does.
Uninformed voters, anyone?
 
The Mark said:
But they DO have a vote...In a way.
By investing in that corporation, they are saying "here is some of my money, I expect to have it increase in the long-term."
In that way, they are also saying "I agree with what methods you use to increase the value of your corporation."
If they don't agree with the corporation's political positions, they either disagree lightly, but still want to improve their financial situation, or don't have any idea what the corporation actually does.
Uninformed voters, anyone?
Click to expand...
Investors have no control beyond moving their investments which is to say they have no input in the speech of the corporation. None. They are passive at best. They do not come together in a group for the purposes of speech.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I'm not thinking it, I was simply afraid that you are...
Click to expand...

I'm not either, so we're all okay. That was close.

I think that we all know that the 1st limits the governments power to restrict free speech. This is obvious. We have all agreed to this over and over and over... please stop stating the obvious. What I, and Jingo are stating... is more subtle.
Click to expand...

Obvious usually beats subtle.

The fact that you continue stating that non-people (corporations) are entitled to free speech the more I think that you might actually think that toasters and trucks have rights, that is all.
Click to expand...

But I'm not stating that non-people are entitled to free speech. That's why I have to keep saying that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech. And now I have to say it again. The 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech. That means it doesn't matter where the speech comes from - you can't restrict it. If toasters ever learn to talk, they'll have it too.

The government cannot make a law that says "this speech is outlawed because it comes from ___" or "because it is paid for by _____" or whatever. It just can't do it. What more need be said?
 
What is the difference between corporations being allowed to fund campaigns, create commercials, etc, and allowing unions, web groups, and damn near the entire media network in the US to do the same thing?
 
VanceMack said:
What is the difference between corporations being allowed to fund campaigns, create commercials, etc, and allowing unions, web groups, and damn near the entire media network in the US to do the same thing?
Click to expand...

Unions=good. Corporations=bad. ;)
 
misterman said:
Obvious usually beats subtle.
Click to expand...

That depends on the objective...

But I'm not stating that non-people are entitled to free speech. That's why I have to keep saying that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech. And now I have to say it again. The 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech. That means it doesn't matter where the speech comes from - you can't restrict it. If toasters ever learn to talk, they'll have it too.

The government cannot make a law that says "this speech is outlawed because it comes from ___" or "because it is paid for by _____" or whatever. It just can't do it. What more need be said?
Click to expand...

We ALL AGREE that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech... if that is your entire point, why are you getting mired down in toaster and corporation arguments, for it certainly sounds as if you are advocating that corporations be entitled the ability to speak or have the rights granted persons, and that is the crux of the ENTIRE DEBATE. If you are simply saying that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech, then that is fine, you made your point and perhaps you should move on, it is obvious, it is simple, it is been done for a while now. ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
That depends on the objective...



We ALL AGREE that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech... if that is your entire point, why are you getting mired down in toaster and corporation arguments, for it certainly sounds as if you are advocating that corporations be entitled the ability to speak or have the rights granted persons, and that is the crux of the ENTIRE DEBATE. If you are simply saying that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech, then that is fine, you made your point and perhaps you should move on, it is obvious, it is simple, it is been done for a while now. ;)
Click to expand...

The fact that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict speech makes the rights, or abilities, of corporations or toasters or people or whatever to speak irrelevant. That is my point.
 
phattonez said:
Unions=good. Corporations=bad. ;)
Click to expand...

The sad thing is...some people actually BELIEVE that. :doh

Unions create jobs...right? no...corporations create jobs...unions suck the life out of the job market and cause them to be shipped overseas.
 
misterman said:
The fact that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict speech makes the rights, or abilities, of corporations or toasters or people or whatever to speak irrelevant. That is my point.
Click to expand...

Ok. I am sure that I can speak for Jingo when I say that, "We get it". Thanks.
 
VanceMack said:
The sad thing is...some people actually BELIEVE that. :doh

Unions create jobs...right? no...corporations create jobs...unions suck the life out of the job market and cause them to be shipped overseas.
Click to expand...

No, an inbalance between the two is what ships jobs overseas, and the corporations are a little more to blame when all is said and down, since all they care about is profit at the expense of people.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No, an inbalance between the two is what ships jobs overseas, and the corporations are a little more to blame when all is said and down, since all they care about is profit at the expense of people.
Click to expand...

Huh? We work to live, we don't live to work. All of this focus on jobs and people don't even realize the value of a job.
 
VanceMack said:
The sad thing is...some people actually BELIEVE that. :doh

Unions create jobs...right? no...corporations create jobs...unions suck the life out of the job market and cause them to be shipped overseas.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it. It's all so simple.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I'm not thinking it, I was simply afraid that you are...

I think that we all know that the 1st limits the governments power to restrict free speech. This is obvious. We have all agreed to this over and over and over... please stop stating the obvious. What I, and Jingo are stating... is more subtle.

The fact that you continue stating that non-people (corporations) are entitled to free speech the more I think that you might actually think that toasters and trucks have rights, that is all.
Click to expand...

He is thinking that and responded as such. He believes that the Constitution was not merely written for the people of the USA but rather that it was written to encompass all things not specifically excluded. Therefore you get the 'when your truck speaks let me know' answer when you press about non-people having protections guaranteed by the BoR.

If you take the Constitution and the DoI together as one idea leading to the other; first declare your independence and once you have independence you then set forth the rules that govern your new found independence, the intent is clear.

So take the text of the DoI and the Preamble to the Constitution and apply the intent. It is quite obvious that the "Framers" had no intention to include entities other than "People" and the 1st amendment acknowledges this by simply listing the 2 other things that are not people, and their protection. Religion and the free exercise thereof and freedom of the press. There is no, 'and any thing we didn't cover'.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
He is thinking that and responded as such. He believes that the Constitution was not merely written for the people of the USA but rather that it was written to encompass all things not specifically excluded.
Click to expand...

Wrong, that's not the issue here at all. Don't speak for others.

If you take the Constitution and the DoI together as one idea leading to the other; first declare your independence and once you have independence you then set forth the rules that govern your new found independence, the intent is clear.

So take the text of the DoI and the Preamble to the Constitution and apply the intent. It is quite obvious that the "Framers" had no intention to include entities other than "People" and the 1st amendment acknowledges this by simply listing the 2 other things that are not people, and their protection. Religion and the free exercise thereof and freedom of the press. There is no, 'and any thing we didn't cover'.
Click to expand...

You don't have to do any of that. You just read this:

Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No, an inbalance between the two is what ships jobs overseas, and the corporations are a little more to blame when all is said and down, since all they care about is profit at the expense of people.
Click to expand...

Look...I know you BELIEVE that crap and all...but most corporate execs are PRETTY business savvy...and they understand that it would be FAR more desirable to keep affordable jobs in the country. Affordable jobs translate to more consumers. Are they interested in bottom line profit? Sure...but sustainable profit is a desirable result.

But I'll even give you the 50/50 responsibility...given that...do you think the unions are going to step in...negotiate lowered benefits and workable salaries to encourage the companies to bring jobs back?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
He is thinking that and responded as such. He believes that the Constitution was not merely written for the people of the USA but rather that it was written to encompass all things not specifically excluded. Therefore you get the 'when your truck speaks let me know' answer when you press about non-people having protections guaranteed by the BoR.

If you take the Constitution and the DoI together as one idea leading to the other; first declare your independence and once you have independence you then set forth the rules that govern your new found independence, the intent is clear.

So take the text of the DoI and the Preamble to the Constitution and apply the intent. It is quite obvious that the "Framers" had no intention to include entities other than "People" and the 1st amendment acknowledges this by simply listing the 2 other things that are not people, and their protection. Religion and the free exercise thereof and freedom of the press. There is no, 'and any thing we didn't cover'.
Click to expand...

Nicely stated... :)
 
VanceMack said:
Look...I know you BELIEVE that crap and all...but most corporate execs are PRETTY business savvy...and they understand that it would be FAR more desirable to keep affordable jobs in the country. Affordable jobs translate to more consumers. Are they interested in bottom line profit? Sure...but sustainable profit is a desirable result.

But I'll even give you the 50/50 responsibility...given that...do you think the unions are going to step in...negotiate lowered benefits and workable salaries to encourage the companies to bring jobs back?
Click to expand...

It isn't crap... it simply isn't black and white. I never said unions were good and corporations were bad, I said that there is an "Inbalance", which is actually how it is.

I would like to think that if unions saw were this was all headed, outsourcing jobs and such, that they would have negotiated lower benefits and salaries in order to maintain a stable working environment, but who knows. It went the way it went with companies like Nike... *shrugs*
 
Bodhisattva said:
Most of us understand and agree with you. Though we do have some here that seem to think that a corporation can speak independently of the people that are actually speaking in that when the people speak, they are absolved of consequences since it was the corporation that "spoke" and the corporation may be sued or punished, but the individual who actually spoke is free and clear since they can hide behind "the corporation".
Click to expand...

Hello?

So now you're saying that the First Amendment exercise of free speech must carry "consequences"?

Corporations, being legal constructs, can't speak for themselves.

What they do, is they are used to hire umm....let's call them "people", or to use a John-and-Ken-ism, "spokesholes" , who then utter noises and issue printed statements and direct advertising done, at the behest of ummm...."people", who are called "stockholders" and "corporate officers", to make the positions known, and these positions, the positions of the collective will of the owners of the corporation, are called the "positions of the corporation", because it's convenient to use that language instead of repeating what I just said everytime one wants to say what a corporation's position is on an issue.

And, unless the speech is libelous or incites riot or other forms of direct harm to others or their property, there are no "consequences" under the First Amendment.
 
misterman said:
Unfortunately, not a reflection of my views.

How about we let people speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

I do think that he is pretty close to what you have stated over and over through the whole deal. You clarified the bottom line, but not all the other stuff that he stated nicely
 
Cassandra said:
Investors have no control beyond moving their investments which is to say they have no input in the speech of the corporation. None. They are passive at best. They do not come together in a group for the purposes of speech.
Click to expand...

That's right.

No corporation ever listens to it's stockholders.

Ever.

:roll:
 
misterman said:
But I'm not stating that non-people are entitled to free speech. That's why I have to keep saying that the 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech. And now I have to say it again. The 1st limits the government's power to restrict free speech. That means it doesn't matter where the speech comes from - you can't restrict it. If toasters ever learn to talk, they'll have it too.

The government cannot make a law that says "this speech is outlawed because it comes from ___" or "because it is paid for by _____" or whatever. It just can't do it. What more need be said?
Click to expand...


Right.

The owners of dogs can be ordered to silence their animal if he's keeping the neighborhood awake at 3:00 AM.

The group of dog owners incorporated as Loudly, Bitches in the Morning, Inc. have every First Amendment protection, as a collective group, as each individual member does.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It isn't crap... it simply isn't black and white. I never said unions were good and corporations were bad, I said that there is an "Inbalance", which is actually how it is.

I would like to think that if unions saw were this was all headed, outsourcing jobs and such, that they would have negotiated lower benefits and salaries in order to maintain a stable working environment, but who knows. It went the way it went with companies like Nike... *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Unions used to be for the worker. Today they exist as their own version of corporations. They spend millions if not billions buying politicians. And to what gain?

Look at some of the very telling evidence from the auto industry. Or the teachers unions. heck...even the culinary unions. I truly dont think they CARE. They are so used to being able to dictate wages and benefits via work stoppages that they dont think what is best long term.

Ive seen the federal employee unions in action. They defend incompetence. Ive never seent he unions go after their own people or take a management side, regardless of how blatant the employee offense or violation. maybe others have examples of how unions have done the right thing by all parties...I dont.

We exist as a service based economy. Thats NOT a way to build an economy...selling other peoples goods. We NEED an effective and vibrant industrial base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom